Anyone watched Twin Peaks recently?

[Spode]

Lost interest when the lad who snapped his pencil in class started looking all moody on his motorbike all the time. Series 2 I think. Head like Gary Rhodes.

[canted_angle_again]

Lost interest when the lad who snapped his pencil in class started looking all moody on his motorbike all the time. Series 2 I think. Head like Gary Rhodes.

Christ, that's a lot to digest.

[sevendaughters]

But isn't it fair to say that it's entirely possible to succeed at that without the unpleasantness?

It's not a part - at all - of what makes the show successful, which is evident in the successes of the episodes made within the tighter broadcast regulation of the network seasons.

The sex scene in the first episode is a perfect example of something that is without meaning or structural function. Two characters we never see again (?) get killed by a terrifying entity. Why is it necessary that they're fucking while it happens and for the absurd length of slow focus on the woman's form before things get going?

Much like James getting framed for murder while he fixes some nobody's car, Twin Peaks would not suffer from the total removal of tits and ass. In a show where sight and sound are used expertly in order to provoke sensation and thought, it just feels indulgent and in service of a facet of human art that is hopefully in decline, which is the unchecked (and evidently in some cases unchallenged) treatment of woman as commodity.

If that contributes to your enjoyment of this, I will have to leave it there. I cannot deny it will make me uncomfortable for the remainder of the run.

There's an essay by David Foster Wallace where he attempts to define Lynchian as the presence of the horrifically grotesque next to the absolutely banal. I'm not 100% sure on that, but my interpretation has always been that the BOB energy world of pure malevolence that unfolds throughout the series is one that preys on those most vulnerable and unable to defend themselves; typically young women giving themselves over to their emotions around love and sex, exploited by the older male avatars in their midst.

I know that isn't the same as, or an excuse for, having whoever that actor is at the beginning of S3 do a full strip for the camera, and the whole thing is largely in media res so we don't get a compelling reason why this dude is worthy of all this attention - it's a problem of sorts because we never get to know - but it is interesting that it is (if I remember correctly) a single shot from the perspective of the box of energy and not a series of lascivious cuts.
Does it absolutely need to happen and be seen? Probably not. Does it have function? Arguably yes: the box-Coop-energy-thing didn't appear until they fucked!

My cards on the table thus: I think it is ok and sometimes even good to show, in your adult-focused TV, a healthy sexual curiosity including using the camera to represent some kind of sexualised gaze as long as there is some element that makes multi-dimensional those being observed or even the implied observer, and as long as it is fairly distributed up and down the age, race, gender, and ability spectrum.

I am not of the opinion that stray instances of ogling are harmful, but I do agree that they need to serve some kind of function (even if it is an abstract one).

It's why I balk when I heard things like 'oh we could just remove these things and the show would function just as well'. I don't want to deny certain aspects of myself to fuel an imagined utilitarianism, and I do think most of these instances in TP (not all) are justifiable and they make the show all the richer. I don't think the network era of TP is such a pure example of clean suggestive sexuality as you think, and I think its nudge-nudge Hays Code style ironic sexualisation feels dishonest in internet porn mental Las Vegas gunshow school shooting Trump America.

[13 schoolyards]

Large chunks of Lynch's movie career has to some extent or another been fueled by the idea that heterosexual sex from a male point of view is both compelling and terrifying. Twin Peaks is a series that on one level is built around the sex-driven murder of a teenage girl working as a hooker to feed a drug habit designed to suppress the memory of constant rape at the hands of her father.

I think it's certainly possible that Lynch is happy to ogle the women in Twin Peaks, also thinks that ogling women can be creepy and dehumanising, and that the tension between those two ideas is what gives many of the scenes in his work their impact. He's certainly big on telling stories that don't often have any kind of single "correct" reading

[Magnum Valentino]

as long as there is some element that makes multi-dimensional those being observed or even the implied observer, and as long as it is fairly distributed up and down the age, race, gender, and ability spectrum.

And that's the key point out of all of this. It isn't fairly distributed up and down the age, race, gender and ability spectrum. It only occurs using young, conventionally attractive and healthy women. (Hopefully without getting into the whole other end of things, I should observe that the one black woman - who is introduced to viewers naked - is one of only two black actors who've appeared in the six episodes I've watched so far.)

You can actually tell based on the facial features and makeup of the actresses in this series how they're going to be used. If it's heavy makeup, bedroom eyes and pouting fake lips, nudity or subjection to sexual gaze is guaranteed. If not - chances are they're someone's worried/annoyed wife.

Yours and 13 schoolyards' points are interesting and compellingly argued, but I'm still not convinced that there's not an element of willful ignorance and proactively charged analysis that underpins your defense of Lynch which comes from (I hope I'm not misjudging) the privilege of being male. Although I accept the possibility exists, I cannot imagine the same arguments being made from a female perspective.

[sevendaughters]

Hey I'm ignorant but it's not because I'm male!

[chutnut]

I'm another one who thinks series 3 is the best thing ever made, and before that it was Mulholland Drive. I've been itching to watch it again since it was first on, but I want to leave it long enough to have maximum impact again when I finally do. That just made me realise it's been 5 years since it was on, wtf.

I don't really want to get involved in this conversation, but saying something like "Women's bodies in Twin Peaks are there to be ogled" does seem very reductive and sensationalist to me.

[Magnum Valentino]

I worry that's because of the way in which the conversations themselves have been reduced and sensationalised to their core energies in the Twitter age. Your reaction is perhaps to the type of conversation, and not this conversation which is really just the challenged opinion of one person, which to be fair you yourself have chosen to reduce to ten words after declaring intention not to participate.

[Magnum Valentino]

Hey I'm ignorant but it's not because I'm male!

I don't think you're ignorant at all.

[sevendaughters]

yeah all the differences of opinion here seem productive and healthy. I was just putting my figurative hat down for a bit so I don't threadshit.

[Magnum Valentino]

I've had to look up what that means but really I don't think either one of us has it in us.

I have enjoyed the discussion and being challenged in a respectful and thought-provoking way is a rarity so cheers!

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Here's a difference of opinion: The Return was 82% guff. There's no need to go all Room 237 about all the guffiness. BOB, ultimate avatar of evil gets punched to oblivion by some cockernee with a gardening glove? Guff! Gratuitous nudity? Guff in the buff!

Luckily, the other 18% was good enough to make up for it.

[mjwilson]

And that's the key point out of all of this. It isn't fairly distributed up and down the age, race, gender and ability spectrum. It only occurs using young, conventionally attractive and healthy women. (Hopefully without getting into the whole other end of things, I should observe that the one black woman - who is introduced to viewers naked - is one of only two black actors who've appeared in the six episodes I've watched so far.)

Lynch's record on racial representation is pretty terrible across his whole career, I don't think you're going to get too many arguments there.

My cards on the table thus: I think it is ok and sometimes even good to show, in your adult-focused TV, a healthy sexual curiosity including using the camera to represent some kind of sexualised gaze as long as there is some element that makes multi-dimensional those being observed or even the implied observer, and as long as it is fairly distributed up and down the age, race, gender, and ability spectrum.

Concerns about Lynch and nudity go back to Ebert's review of Blue Velvet, which I think is now internationally regarded as a bad take.

Rossellini is asked to do things in this film that require real nerve. In one scene, she's publicly embarrassed by being dumped naked on the lawn of the police detective. In others, she is asked to portray emotions that I imagine most actresses would rather not touch. She is degraded, slapped around, humiliated and undressed in front of the camera. And when you ask an actress to endure those experiences, you should keep your side of the bargain by putting her in an important film.

That's what Bernardo Bertolucci delivered when he put Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider through the ordeal of "Last Tango in Paris." In "Blue Velvet," Rossellini goes the whole distance, but Lynch distances himself from her ordeal with his clever asides and witty little in-jokes. In a way, his behavior is more sadistic than the Hopper character.

What's worse? Slapping somebody around, or standing back and finding the whole thing funny?

(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986, https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/my-problem-with-blue-velvet)

I don't really recognise what Ebert is talking about there, particularly the scene on the lawn, and the idea that Lynch finds that scene to be funny.

[Noodle Lizard]

Here's a difference of opinion: The Return was 82% guff. There's no need to go all Room 237 about all the guffiness. BOB, ultimate avatar of evil gets punched to oblivion by some cockernee with a gardening glove? Guff! Gratuitous nudity? Guff in the buff!

Luckily, the other 18% was good enough to make up for it.

I'm not sure our percentages match up (I've lost my calculations), but I do agree that a good deal of it was quite bad or at least a bit boring. It's easy to forget that since the brilliant bits are really brilliant, and those are what stick with you, but I think it could've been done in about half the time without losing much of value (and perhaps coming up with a less shit BOB showdown). I'm sure others would disagree and I'll need to watch it again really, but that's an 18 hour commitment to something I remember being very uneven.

[mjwilson]

I'm not sure our percentages match up (I've lost my calculations), but I do agree that a good deal of it was quite bad or at least a bit boring. It's easy to forget that since the brilliant bits are really brilliant, and those are what stick with you, but I think it could've been done in about half the time without losing much of value (and perhaps coming up with a less shit BOB showdown). I'm sure others would disagree and I'll need to watch it again really, but that's an 18 hour commitment to something I remember being very uneven.

And "about half the time" is exactly what it was going to be, until Lynch decided to throw a spanner in the works.

[Egyptian Feast]

Concerns about Lynch and nudity go back to Ebert's review of Blue Velvet, which I think is now internationally regarded as a bad take.

Oof, hadn't read that before. The comparison to Last Tango In Paris has aged particularly badly now we know exactly what Bertolucci put Schneider through to make his 'important' film.

[Rev+]

I'd not read the Ebert thing before either.  He was often insightful, but would cruise straight past the point at times.  That lawn scene in Blue Velvet is horrible and is framed as horrible:  you have the jeering bullying wankers taunting Jeffrey before and after she appears ('hey, is that your mum') but they change after they clock his reaction, try to apologise, and run off.  It's the opposite of laughing at the situation, it's a sign that even the arseholes of the piece know that something's deeply wrong.

I think that scene works as justified nudity.  There's no way of it playing properly otherwise.

With Twin Peaks 3 it wasn't necessary, and when I saw it for the first time I rolled my eyes in the same way I did when I saw Fire Walk With Me for the first time.  Did we really need to see Sheryl Lee's tits in the school toilet bit?  Particularly as it was entirely framed as a 'hey, tits' shot.  There's no nudity after the second episode, although there is the tracking of Tammy's arse.

[Ron Maels Moustache]

Lynch's record on racial representation is pretty terrible across his whole career, I don't think you're going to get too many arguments there.

Concerns about Lynch and nudity go back to Ebert's review of Blue Velvet, which I think is now internationally regarded as a bad take.

(https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986, https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/my-problem-with-blue-velvet)

I don't really recognise what Ebert is talking about there, particularly the scene on the lawn, and the idea that Lynch finds that scene to be funny.

Oof, comparing Blue Velvet unfavourably to Last Tango because the latter is "important" is a particularly bad take. You can criticise Lynch for his male-gazey approach to female characters, but he is famously respectful of his actors and would never allow a scene to cross over into actual sexual/physical abuse, like what happened with Brando and Maria Schneider in the latter film.

[Magnum Valentino]

Episode 8 ("Gotta Light?") is brilliant and the first time I can agree with some of the extreme-end praise in this thread.

[QDRPHNC]

Definitely moments in TP3 that felt like uncomfortably ogling, Lynch and Miguel Ferrer commenting on Chrysta Bell's arse being the most obvious. I don't think there's much excuse for it.

But it did get me thinking about how David Lynch uses sex. If you're the sort of person who gels with his style, he does have this way of worming deep into your unconscious without you being able to say how he's doing it exactly. And sex being this incredibly primal thing, he definitely uses it as a method of increasing discomfort.

Thinking about that rape scene in Blue Velvet, would it have been as impactful if Dennis Hopper had brutally beat Isabella Rossellini instead? Or the scene in Wild at Heart where Willem Dafoe has that moment in the motel room with Laura Dern. The sexual dynamic dials up everything, not just in the scene, but in the viewer - revulsion, discomfort, titillation, guilt? It stirs up very old and very odd feelings and sensations, it puts us in a personal grey area which most mainstream movies avoid doing, but Lynch insists we do.

I think there is a line between that at the arse-ogling, and I remember being really disappointed when I saw that scene. But there are of course many other elements at play too - Lynch obviously has a thing for old Hollywood, pin-ups and "traditional" (old-fashioned) gender roles as filtered through the movies of the day. It's hard to know when he's satirizing, or doing an homage, and I don't know there's much value breaking down his work along those lines.

I don't know that I said anything worthwhile or insightful there, but it was knocking around inside my head nonetheless. I think you've raised very good points, @Magnum Valentino.

Oof, comparing Blue Velvet unfavourably to Last Tango because the latter is "important" is a particularly bad take. You can criticise Lynch for his male-gazey approach to female characters, but he is famously respectful of his actors and would never allow a scene to cross over into actual sexual/physical abuse, like what happened with Brando and Maria Schneider in the latter film.

I hold Ebert in high esteem, but he could way off base sometimes. He had this to say about Raising Arizona, which I don't think could miss the point harder if it tried: "Generally speaking, it's best to have your characters speak in strong but unaffected English, especially when your story is set in the present. Otherwise they'll end up distracting the hell out of everybody."

[mjwilson]

I hold Ebert in high esteem, but he could way off base sometimes. He had this to say about Raising Arizona, which I don't think could miss the point harder if it tried: "Generally speaking, it's best to have your characters speak in strong but unaffected English, especially when your story is set in the present. Otherwise they'll end up distracting the hell out of everybody."

Alan Sugar considers tweet rewrite

[Noodle Lizard]

The sex scene in the first episode is a perfect example of something that is without meaning or structural function. Two characters we never see again (?) get killed by a terrifying entity. Why is it necessary that they're fucking while it happens and for the absurd length of slow focus on the woman's form before things get going?

I've just started rewatching The Return and, knowing how it all ends, there is some significance to that sex scene:

Spoiler alert

The creature/entity that appears (probably "Judy", the source of all bad things) is summoned by sex, which is why two other characters have a loveless shag later on in order to draw her to them.

[close]

You could also argue that scene follows the traditional horror trope of a couple of young people shagging and then getting immediately murdered, which is probably intentional. I didn't think it was particularly gratuitous, she's only seen from behind. It is slow, but so's a lot of the show.

I don't disagree with your point entirely, however; Lynch definitely uses a lot of leering, lingering shots of (mostly) female sexuality, but I think other people in this thread have made good points about how it's probably got a bit more depth and purpose to it than that.

[Ambient Sheep]

This is perhaps not the best time to post this thing that appeared in my Twitter feed last night:

https://twitter.com/DuganAmanda/status/1489984937545674758

[The Mollusk]

Listen David Lynch is an old man who likes the ass and tits. He will be dead soon so just let him enjoy it. You can't teach the elderly anything, trust me.

[sevendaughters]

There's nothing wrong with a dildo! Like a bloody Concerned Parents group in here!

[Magnum Valentino]

There's no nudity after the second episode, although there is the tracking of Tammy's arse.

Untrue!!!

Just finished the series this morning and pored through some of the old (mammoth) threads to see what everyone thought.

If I could distill my own questions down to those that I actually care about having answers for (I'm quite accepting of what's presented to me in Peaks as a sensory experience, hence my discomfort with what I've already raised but also my enjoyment of the general tone of it), they would be these -

A lot of talk of 'Judy' in the threads as well as some referencing in the show. I didn't take much away from this other than of her as a manifestation of malice that transcended even Bob's scope and influence. Was 'Judy' embodied in any way in the series?

And the other one's a simple enough one - what was the craic with the desert potato bug in the 50s? How did you all interpret who that wee girl was (or who she became)?

Also, one from season 2. Josie drawerknob?

Overall really enjoyed the last season and it's left me feeling really unpleasantly unable to stop thinking about it so I might have to go for a walk in the rain to escape but I'm worried it'll just follow me the bastard.

[Petey Pate]

I liked the bit where the guy sweeps the floor to Green Onions.

[mjwilson]

A lot of talk of 'Judy' in the threads as well as some referencing in the show. I didn't take much away from this other than of her as a manifestation of malice that transcended even Bob's scope and influence. Was 'Judy' embodied in any way in the series?

Spoiler alert

Judy is not mentioned in S1/2 but is in Fire Walk With Me - Bowie's "we're not going to talk about Judy", and the final word of the film is the monkey saying "Judy". S3 links her to Jouday, and Mark Frost's Final Dossier goes further, linking Joudy back to an ancient Sumerian demon, and Bob with Ba'al/Beelzebub,  and saying that if the two ever united, it could cause the end of the world.

Not everyone likes the Frost books, and the Sarah Palmer stuff is a bit of a head-scratcher. It doesn't really seem to fit that she is possessed during S1/S2, so do we assume that Judy manifested somehow in the gap between S2 and S3?

I'm not going to talk about what's canonical, but I think the Frost books are at the very least an interesting guide to how he was thinking while he was writing with Lynch. All that stuff is the kind of thing which Lynch would not confirm on screen but Frost is more of a blabbermouth.

[close]

And the other one's a simple enough one - what was the craic with the desert potato bug in the 50s? How did you all interpret who that wee girl was (or who she became)?

Spoiler alert

The frogbug is plausibly a manifestation of Judy and the girl is probably Sarah Palmer - at least in Frost's mind, this is basically confirmed in the Final Dossier too. Noted Lynch scholar Martha Nochimson doesn't like this view, but she seems to quite anti-Frost in general.

[close]

Also, one from season 2. Josie drawerknob?

Spoiler alert

I think the general consensus would be that her soul is trapped in the Great Northern, just as the Log Lady's husband is trapped in the log.

All of those are the quick and easy answers of course, there's plenty of other ways to look at it. For example instead of talking about Judy and Bob as literal demons/devils, there was a lot of contrasting Bob as "the evil that men do" and Judy as the evil caused by looking away and ignoring what is happening under your own roof.

[close]

Overall really enjoyed the last season and it's left me feeling really unpleasantly unable to stop thinking about it so I might have to go for a walk in the rain to escape but I'm worried it'll just follow me the bastard.

[Magnum Valentino]

Class, I can't believe it didn't occur to me that whatever was up with Sarah (face off moment especially) would link to that. Nicely explained. I can't muster enthusiasm about a critic who's dismissing the input of the show's other creative voice and indeed a lot of discussion about the series in general seems to ignore Mark Frost, although whether that's intentional or just honest ignorance is harder to tell.

I read just now that the woman at the house at the end actually owns the house and a popular reading is that Coop (...?) and Sheryl's character came into 'reality' which is interesting if unsatisfying.

[mjwilson]

Class, I can't believe it didn't occur to me that whatever was up with Sarah (face off moment especially) would link to that. Nicely explained. I can't muster enthusiasm about a critic who's dismissing the input of the show's other creative voice and indeed a lot of discussion about the series in general seems to ignore Mark Frost, although whether that's intentional or just honest ignorance is harder to tell.

I read just now that the woman at the house at the end actually owns the house and a popular reading is that Coop (...?) and Sheryl's character came into 'reality' which is interesting if unsatisfying.

Agree that it doesn't really work.

Spoiler alert

If it was supposed to be real life, why isn't she using her real name? Instead she's using Tremond/Chalfont names which are tied into the Twin Peaks mythology.

Equally, they drive past the Double R on the way in, not Twedes cafe. (In real life I think it is called the Double R now, but I don't think it was at the time of filming.)

I think it's just the Double R though, and they don't have the RR2Go sign on it, which may be a hint about what year it is (or may not mean anything at all). I think someone also tried to use the price of gas in Odessa to work out what year it is, although I'd be surprised if Lynch went that far in planting clues.

[close]