1 2 > 
 
   
 

Twin Peaks: The Return

 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
05 September 2017 06:11
 

My wife and I both loved it; the two-part finale was Sunday night but we were out so we just watched it last night.

Still sorta stunned. It probably won’t be long before I go back and re-watch the whole thing. Not the ending I ‘wanted’ but I recognize that getting that ending would have been cheating.

I don’t know if any of you all also watched it but my goodness. What a work of art.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
05 September 2017 18:44
 

Do you need to have watched the original series to understand it?

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
05 September 2017 19:13
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 05 September 2017 06:44 PM

Do you need to have watched the original series to understand it?

Good question. At least some familiarity is probably essential, yes.

Neither my wife nor I watched it when it was first on—to be honest, I always thought Lynch was pretentious and over-rated until I watched Mulholland Drive which absolutely knocked me out. It quickly became one of my all-time favorite movies; so much that it pushed me to re-consider Lynch’s previous work. So when Showtime announced that “The Return” was coming, my wife and I watched the first two seasons, plus the movie prequel “Fire Walk With Me.”

Honestly, if you just watched the 8 episodes of the first season, the last episode of the second, and the movie, you’d be more than ready for The Return. Much of the original Season Two was pretty bad (the network forced Lynch to “solve” the mystery, and he pretty much washed his hands of the show and let it peter out. Some of the later episodes are really bad, almost a parody of Lynch done by others) and doesn’t really add much to the universe of the show.

It’s an amazing piece of work. A deep, surrealistic meditation on loss, pain, death, grief, and trauma. Pretty stunning stuff.

[ Edited: 05 September 2017 19:16 by bigredfutbol]
 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
05 September 2017 19:19
 

You might notice that my current avatar is Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey Horne in the original series. I logged back into this forum after an absence right about when we were watching the original series.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2017 13:12
 
bigredfutbol - 05 September 2017 07:19 PM

You might notice that my current avatar is Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey Horne in the original series. I logged back into this forum after an absence right about when we were watching the original series.

I didn’t notice that until you pointed it out.

I just re-watched Mulholland Drive again for the nth time after listening to the Very Bad Wizards’ podcast analysis of it. What a great flick!

I’ll have to give The Return a try. I’ve heard mixed reviews on it.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17605
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 September 2017 15:53
 

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2017 20:04
 
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15839
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
09 September 2017 06:56
 
bigredfutbol - 05 September 2017 07:19 PM

You might notice that my current avatar is Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey Horne in the original series. I logged back into this forum after an absence right about when we were watching the original series.

You forgot to include the cherry stems.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17605
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 September 2017 07:45
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 10:01
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 01:12 PM
bigredfutbol - 05 September 2017 07:19 PM

You might notice that my current avatar is Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey Horne in the original series. I logged back into this forum after an absence right about when we were watching the original series.

I didn’t notice that until you pointed it out.

I just re-watched Mulholland Drive again for the nth time after listening to the Very Bad Wizards’ podcast analysis of it. What a great flick!

I’ll have to give The Return a try. I’ve heard mixed reviews on it.

Thanks for the heads up on the podcast—I’ll give it a listen.

I can see why reviews are mixed—it’s not a “return” to the lovable camp that many people most remember from the original series. It’s often puzzling watching. I won’t say much more in case you do get around to watching it but if you love Mulholland Drive I think you’ll find it worthwhile.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 10:06
 
GAD - 09 September 2017 07:45 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

That’s actually how I felt about most of Lynch’s work up until Mulholland Drive, which clicked for me emotionally and otherwise in ways his previous work never did. So I can understand that reaction because even though I’d enjoyed some of his work (The Elephant Man for one, and I always recognized the visual genius of Eraserhead even if it did seem to wallow in making the viewer uncomfortable) I used to pretty much the same way about him.

Also, I sort of disagree with Antisocialdarwinist here—I think what’s great about it is that puzzle pieces ALMOST—but never quite—fit together. The whole film has a wonderful dream logic that at first you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17605
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
10 September 2017 11:26
 
bigredfutbol - 10 September 2017 10:06 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 07:45 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

That’s actually how I felt about most of Lynch’s work up until Mulholland Drive, which clicked for me emotionally and otherwise in ways his previous work never did. So I can understand that reaction because even though I’d enjoyed some of his work (The Elephant Man for one, and I always recognized the visual genius of Eraserhead even if it did seem to wallow in making the viewer uncomfortable) I used to pretty much the same way about him.

Also, I sort of disagree with Antisocialdarwinist here—I think what’s great about it is that puzzle pieces ALMOST—but never quite—fit together. The whole film has a wonderful dream logic that at first you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.

 

This

“you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.”

I just dismissed it as pointless and never thought about it again.

 

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 12:56
 
GAD - 10 September 2017 11:26 AM
bigredfutbol - 10 September 2017 10:06 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 07:45 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

That’s actually how I felt about most of Lynch’s work up until Mulholland Drive, which clicked for me emotionally and otherwise in ways his previous work never did. So I can understand that reaction because even though I’d enjoyed some of his work (The Elephant Man for one, and I always recognized the visual genius of Eraserhead even if it did seem to wallow in making the viewer uncomfortable) I used to pretty much the same way about him.

Also, I sort of disagree with Antisocialdarwinist here—I think what’s great about it is that puzzle pieces ALMOST—but never quite—fit together. The whole film has a wonderful dream logic that at first you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.

 

This

“you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.”

I just dismissed it as pointless and never thought about it again.

 

To each their own. To me, that’s what’s so brilliant about it—unlike so many works of art which try to be “dreamlike” Mulholland Drive really pulls it off. Not in a silly, gimmicky way, but in the way our subconscious actually does.

 

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 12:56
 
burt - 09 September 2017 06:56 AM
bigredfutbol - 05 September 2017 07:19 PM

You might notice that my current avatar is Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey Horne in the original series. I logged back into this forum after an absence right about when we were watching the original series.

You forgot to include the cherry stems.

Oh, they’re implied.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 14:14
 
bigredfutbol - 10 September 2017 10:06 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 07:45 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

That’s actually how I felt about most of Lynch’s work up until Mulholland Drive, which clicked for me emotionally and otherwise in ways his previous work never did. So I can understand that reaction because even though I’d enjoyed some of his work (The Elephant Man for one, and I always recognized the visual genius of Eraserhead even if it did seem to wallow in making the viewer uncomfortable) I used to pretty much the same way about him.

Also, I sort of disagree with Antisocialdarwinist here—I think what’s great about it is that puzzle pieces ALMOST—but never quite—fit together. The whole film has a wonderful dream logic that at first you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.

 

Listen to the podcast and then see if you still feel the same way. There are one or two scenes that don’t seem to fit, but I don’t think the overall theme is ever in doubt. The scenes that don’t fit may be because the film was originally supposed to be the pilot for a series. The loose ends might have been intended as hooks to further intrigue. Or they might have been intended to do exactly as you suggest, to leave one or two things ambiguous. But I don’t think they’re enough to cast doubt on what’s happening in general.

 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
10 September 2017 14:27
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 10 September 2017 02:14 PM
bigredfutbol - 10 September 2017 10:06 AM
GAD - 09 September 2017 07:45 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 08 September 2017 08:04 PM
GAD - 08 September 2017 03:53 PM

I remember watching Mulholland Drive and saying WTF was that supposed to be about.

It’s a puzzle. More like two puzzles. The first puzzle is to figure out what the puzzle is. Then you can put all the pieces together.

Seemed like weird for the sake of being weird.

That’s actually how I felt about most of Lynch’s work up until Mulholland Drive, which clicked for me emotionally and otherwise in ways his previous work never did. So I can understand that reaction because even though I’d enjoyed some of his work (The Elephant Man for one, and I always recognized the visual genius of Eraserhead even if it did seem to wallow in making the viewer uncomfortable) I used to pretty much the same way about him.

Also, I sort of disagree with Antisocialdarwinist here—I think what’s great about it is that puzzle pieces ALMOST—but never quite—fit together. The whole film has a wonderful dream logic that at first you THINK you can make sense of…but then when you try to fit the last few pieces into an almost-completed whole, you find they don’t quite fit.

 

Listen to the podcast and then see if you still feel the same way. There are one or two scenes that don’t seem to fit, but I don’t think the overall theme is ever in doubt. The scenes that don’t fit may be because the film was originally supposed to be the pilot for a series. The loose ends might have been intended as hooks to further intrigue. Or they might have been intended to do exactly as you suggest, to leave one or two things ambiguous. But I don’t think they’re enough to cast doubt on what’s happening in general.

In general, I’ve always assumed that the two parts of the film are riffs on a tragedy and a failed love affair. The standard answer is usually the the first part of the film is a dream—“Betty” is dreaming of an idealized love between her and “Rita” in which the sordid reality of what really happened gets re-worked into a much more intriguing mystery, one in which “Betty” actually saves “Rita”—and then in the in the second half, we get the “real” story; “Betty” is really Diane, a failed actress who had her former lover Camilla (“Rita”) killed out of jealousy after Camilla succeeded as an actress, and left Diane for a male director.

And that kinda, mostly works…except there’s some stuff in the second half that’s far from realistic. And of course the movies ends back at Club Silencio, which otherwise only appears in the first half.

Which is what I mean—the theory that the first half is idealized dream and the second grubby, tragic reality ALMOST works. But not quite.

I’ve even heard a theory that the entire movie actually the Aunt’s dream, perhaps two variations of a recurring dream she’s been haunted by for years—she’s the failed actress, and an upcoming visit from her niece Diane prods the whole thing. Which supposedly explains some of the anachronistic touches and the fact that the movie-within-a-movie is set decades in the past, when the Aunt would have been a young aspiring actress.

But—I do need to listen to this podcast now. You’ve more than piqued my curiosity!

 
 
 1 2 >