I’m watching now again (for the 3rd time) the complete Twin Peaks series, this time together with 3 friends. The 3rd (a girl from Taiwan) just started with episode 14, but she likes it and will proceed, even if she don’t understand due to the late entry.
We had already started talking about Twin Peaks in another thread, but I have transfered this over here.
Me and my friends watch now between 2 and 4 episodes per evening, and it’s pure heaven.
Last episode was the incredible 15th, directed by Lynch himself, were Bob’s secret is revealed, and he kill’s again. One of Lynch’s best sequences, very brutish, very emotional.
(Note: I’m counting the pilot as episode 1, so that the 2nd season starts with #9, another 90 min pilot, and the last episode is #30)
[quote=“stanton, post:1256, topic:372”]No, no I watch it now the 3rd time.
It’s brillant up to episode 17, in which the Laura Palmer case is, well, “solved”. Thereafter it’s not as tight constructed. There are some unnecessary storylines besides the main story. It could have been a bit shorter, down to maybe about 26 or 28 episodes instead of 30, but overall I like it as a whole. And it has a great ending.[/quote]
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:1255, topic:372”]I have more or less the same ideas
Even though I’m all but a Lynch fan I liked the first season: it was a well-told cross between soap opera, comedy and thriller
In the course of the second season the soap opera aspect gets more and more the upperhand and the storytelling becomes confused, leading absolutely nowhere.[/quote]
[quote=“stanton, post:1257, topic:372”]But the 1st season are only 8 episodes, including the pilot.
It could have ended after #17, but it also could have gone elsewhere after #30.[/quote]
[quote=“Søren, post:1258, topic:372”]You think so? I thought it looked a bit like Lynch trying to include as many cliff-hangers as humanly possible making the crowd scream for more and thereby gaining a third season. I like the weirdness of the last couple of episodes (am a great Lynch ‘fan’) but should have been introduced much sooner and coming as it did in the end just feels, well, weird.
Like the movie Twin Pekas: Fire Walk With Me much better. Got lousy reviews as far as I remember but it is an excellent very hard movie… People looking for the humour so apparent in the Twin Peaks-series will get a kick in the face by that one… Definitely recommended.[/quote]
[quote=“Earl McGraw, post:1259, topic:372”]It’s the best series ever. The second half of the second season never comes near the brilliance of the first season and the beginning of the second season. The final episode is one of the best, if not the best, in the entire series though…
When I watched this for the first time(after watching all the previous episodes from the first season) I just made me cry.[/quote]
It’s brillant up to episode 17, in which the Laura Palmer case is, well, “solved”. Thereafter it’s not as tightly constructed. There are some unnecessary storylines besides the main story. It could have been a bit shorter, down to maybe about 26 or 28 episodes instead of 30, but overall I like it as a whole. And it has a great ending.
Haven’t seen the last episode again for now, but as I’m remembering it, it was a great way of ending Twin Peaks. Of course it would have gone on for another season, if it had still been successful, and the next season would have been centered around the White Lodge, at least so I think.
The first possible end could have been after # 17 with Lelands salvation, an optimistic ending with a slight pessimistic touch in the last shot of the owl and the woods.
Whereas # 30 ends in a very downbeat way, and that’s for me a perfect end for the series, cause Cooper’s “transformation” seems to me as a logical and fitting climax for the whole conception.
Of course, viewed as an end, and not only as another cliffhanger, it’s an open end.
And there were not as much open questions and motifs as after # 17. But I never had expected that everything in the series would be explained, the openess was always part of the fun.
Viewed as an end, the explosion is also no cliffhanger, but stands for the death of several of the main characters, which is also very fitting.
The only real cliffhanger I’m remembering concerns Ben Horne.
And some of the new characters just weren’t as interessting as the old ones(the woman James meets in the house for example). Also the atmosphere wasn’t as beautiful as in the earlier episodes. But the final episode just makes all of this right so that’s great… Very shocking, beautiful ending.
The first possible end could have been after # 17 with Lelands salvation, an optimistic ending with a slight pessimistic touch in the last shot of the owl and the woods.
I don't think this would have been great as an ending. The final episode is very mysterious now as is the ending itself, much better than a 'standard' emotional climax as would have been the case if it ended after the case is solved(no matter how beautiful the scenes in the prison are)...
I always start worrying when people talk to themselves
I’m afraid I can’t help you on this
I saw TWIN PEAKS when it was originally shown on the BBC, so a long, long time ago
I remember that initially I was looking forward to every new installment
After a while (halfway second series?) I got a little … it’s difficult to say, bored? irritated?
Like S()ren has said, Lynch started to come up with new story-lines all the time, and most of them went nowhere
But the problem, to me, is that I started to recognize Lynch’s technique and tricks
I had more or less the same experiences with his films
I liked Erashead and Blue Velvet (let’s forget Dune), my troubles started with Wild at Heart - it still had great moments, but those idiosyncratic Lynchisms started to shine through. It got worse in Lost Highway. I’ve seen most of his film since - he still is of course a very talented film maker - but they somehow leave me cold.
I don’t now what it is exactly with film makers like Scorsese and Lynch - I see their brilliance, but have great difficulties to relate to their work, I remain an outsider, a viewer who’s constantly aware he’s watching a movie and never gets into them
Yes, and if there had been a third season the last episode wouldn’t have bothered me as much … Some of the threads left hanging would have bound together, things would hopefully make more sense with time. Now Lynch just as a matter of fact placed a bomb in the middle of Twin Peaks, let it blow, and uttered a “So long suckers” and we are left watching the bloods and gore all over the place, thinking was that really necessary? It was what my wife would call “Lynch being weird for weirdness sake” (Not a big Lynch fan )
But a third season WOULD have been great and a tighter second season might have made that happen. Lynch should probably have directed more episodes and kept a tighter rein on the whole thing.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:6, topic:974”]I had more or less the same experiences with his films
I liked Erashead and Blue Velvet (let’s forget Dune), my troubles started with Wild at Heart - it still had great moments, but those idiosyncratic Lynchisms started to shine through. It got worse in Lost Highway. I’ve seen most of his film since - he still is of course a very talented film maker - but they somehow leave me cold.[/quote]
Yes Lynch definitely got weirder starting at Wild at Heart and I guess you either like it or it just irritates you. I happen to like it though. Wild at Heart is one of my favourite Lynch movies and Lost Highway is probably at the moment THE favourite of the bunch. And why is that? Well I like the cyclic plot thing which he has going not only in Lost Highway but also Mulholland Drive and also Inland Empire and I like the fact that I can watch the movie(s) several times, get new things out of them each time, not necessarily ‘understanding’ them per se because I don’t see that as the main objective and don’t think they are movies to be understood but more movies which trigger emotions/feelings which will differ from each viewer. Reality is relative. What I see will not necessarily be what you see and what I feel will definitely not be what you feel. Much like taking a Rorshach ‘test’ really
[quote author=Søren link=topic=1104.
(…) Reality is relative. What I see will not necessarily be what you see and what I feel will definitely not be what you feel. Much like taking a Rorshach ‘test’ really
[/quote]
I can’t help correcting you on this point, Soren (after all I am a philosopher):
You talk about the perception of reality, that is not the same thing
What you might have heard about ‘relativism’ is the idea that truth is relative (a social construct as Foucault would say); since Sokal and Bricmont wrote their famous book Intellectual Impostures, few philosophers and/or scientists uphold that presumption about relativism.
But that has all very little to do with Rorshah tests or Lynch.
[quote=“Søren”]perception of [/i] reality, that is not the same thing
What you might have heard about ‘relativism’ is the idea that truth is relative (a social construct as Foucault would say); since Sokal and Bricmont wrote their famous book Intellectual Impostures, few philosophers and/or scientists uphold that presumption about relativism.
But that has all very little to do with Rorshah tests or Lynch.[/quote]
Maybe Barthes ‘Death of the Author’ … or a Derridian statement of ‘There is nothing outside the text’ (translation) - meaning both the text is self-contained in its own discrete reality, but also, paradoxically everything (including the ‘outside reality’) is included within the text … comes into play here.
But what the fuck would I know - I’ve never seen 'em :P.
[quote=“Reverend Danite, post:11, topic:974”]Maybe Barthes ‘Death of the Author’ … or a Derridian statement of ‘There is nothing outside the text’ (translation) - meaning both the text is self-contained in its own discrete reality, but also, paradoxically everything (including the ‘outside reality’) is included within the text … comes into play here.
But what the fuck would I know - I’ve never seen 'em :P.[/quote]
Good question, difficult to answer
Derrida’s “Il n’y a pas de hors-texte” isn’t one of the clearest statements done in the history of philosophy;
personally I think he had a few interesting things to say (I attended some of his lectures) but “He is more loved for obscuring things than for illuminating them”, as Umberto Eco once said. I know there are people who think obscurantism is a sign of intelligence, but I am not one of them.
I could say more about Derrida, but it’s my wife’s birthday
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:10, topic:974”]I can’t help correcting you on this point, Soren (after all I am a philosopher):
You talk about the perception of reality, that is not the same thing[/quote]
Oh didn’t want to go into a philosophical discussion
But still no, there is no ‘real’ reality. Your brain generates your world therefore there is no ‘out there’ that be differentiated from who (or what) you are… That’s what I meant by comparing it to a Rorshach test: There is no real image but your brain will certainly try to make something comprehensible out of it. One might see a swan and another a devil Please notice that I’m not trying to start a philosophical argument here, I’m talking ‘practical’ reality
[quote=“Søren, post:13, topic:974”]Oh didn’t want to go into a philosophical discussion
But still no, there is no ‘real’ reality. Your brain generates your world therefore there is no ‘out there’ that be differentiated from who (or what) you are… That’s what I meant by comparing it to a Rorshach test: There is no real image but your brain will certainly try to make something comprehensible out of it. One might see a swan and another a devil Please notice that I’m not trying to start a philosophical argument here, I’m talking ‘practical’ reality
Still much off-topic and I apologize for that.[/quote]
I know it’s off-topic, but you still don’t get the point
The Rorshach test is used in psychology (at least in some schools), to know - or at least have some idea - how somebody’s mind works, in a (like you implied more or little) practical way; as far as I know psychologists don’t study those questions about reality and whether they can be differentiated from what you are - it’s not relevant for their discipline.
I think you meant to say that You make up your Lynch movie, let’s say Lost Highway, and I make up mine, and that there is no such thing as a Lost Highway sec, so a Lost Highway that can be differentiated from our perception. That is true, but that’s no statement about reality or its nature.
I do get your point. What I am talking about is that there is no apparent reality which can be differentiated from its ‘measuring apparatus’, that is your mind and so it makes no sense talking about a real reality at all. It doesn’t exist, everything is interpreted/measured and thereby the existence of a common reality makes no sense.
That was just my point and I just used the Rorscach thing as an example of as you pointed out the mind works. We are probably more or less in agreement, I just need to formulate things a bit better
[quote=“Søren, post:15, topic:974”]I do get your point. What I am talking about is that there is no apparent reality which can be differentiated from its ‘measuring apparatus’, that is your mind and so it makes no sense talking about a real reality at all. It doesn’t exist, everything is interpreted/measured and thereby the existence of a common reality makes no sense.
That was just my point and I just used the Rorscach thing as an example of as you pointed out the mind works. We are probably more or less in agreement, I just need to formulate things a bit better :)[/quote]
No, you formulate well, but we have a different background so the term ‘reality’ has a different meaning to us
We are in agreement about the ‘reality of a movie/work of art’ and that’s the most important thing here
To get back on topic: What do people in here think about the Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me movie? I know that some people having seen the tv-series get blown off by the movies lack of the humour found in the series. Any opinions? I myself find the raw tone refreshing and probably what would/could have made the series carry on a bit further had it been utilized well there.
My opinion of Fire Walk With Me seems to change everytime I see it so don’t pin me on what I’m about to say…
First let me say more Twin Peaks is always fun and I enjoyed myself seeing more. The idea of making a prequel about the killing of Laura Palmer also is a good idea. I think Leland is still good, but not as good as in the series(as is other acting, except for Laura, but that of course, is just logic since she hardly gets screentime in the series). I think the girl playing Donna doesn’t come anywhere near the character and when watching FWWM I always get annoyed by her. I also like the idea(SPOILER WARNING) of the ending, Laura Palmer as an angel(END OF SPOILER) but it looks so unrealistic(and of course it isn’t but it should give that impression).
I’ll finish this post later though since I’ve gotta go catch my train to school
We have meanwhile watched episodes 16-17, in which the Laura Palmer murder case comes to an end. Both belong to the best of the series, and I’m a bit surprised that # 17 wasn’t directed by Lynch himself, who before picked himself out the filet pieces. Instead it was directed by Lynch friend Tim Hunter (director of River’s Edge) who also did #5 and the penultimate #29 (also one of the “special” epidodes).
#17 has a provisional end (with of course many questions open), it’s also the 1st episode which ends at the following morning of a day and not in the night. And after it there is for the first time a gap, a 3 day gap, whereas all the episodes before took place on one, successive day.
And with Leland’s salvation this episode also has one of the typical excessive Lynch happy ends.
For everybody who dislikes the last 13 episodes, it would also be the optimal way to make a stop. Episode 17 would have been (but wasn’t) one way to bring the series to a fitting and satisfactory end.
‘Through the darkness of future-past the magician longs to see one chance out between two worlds ! Fire walk with me … I too had been touched by the devilish one but when I saw the face of God, I was changed…’
‘Catch you with my Death Bag … You may think I’ve gone insane. But I promise … I will kill again !’
‘Where we’re from, the birds sing a pretty song and there’s always music in the air.’ [The Dream-man starts dancing]
(Episode 2: Cooper’s dream = one of my favorites)
I’ve just found this thread !!! Twin Peaks is definately my very favorite tv-show ever, I just love it ! Didn’t miss one show when it was first shown on German television (RTL - have 'em all taped, later got the DVD boxset) in the early ‘90s ! As many have already pointed out the series looses greatness after episode #17 but this one is the bomb: ‘Have you forgotten what happened to you in Pittsburg, huh Cooper ???’ … Now it’s time to take the sleeping car to Buffalo !!!’
I also like the movie ‘Fire walk with me’ along with the other Lynch movies. My favorites are ‘Blue Velvet’, ‘Lost Highway’ and ‘Mullholland Drive’.
)
:P.
:P.[/quote]