it is not a particularly great revelation, look you see, to suggest that this (or any) post (article, think piece, what you like) might be confused, in instances incoherent, far from free flowing and mixing the non-linear with the non non-linear. but, for this one, i am quite aware of how it shall be so. giving some fair warning seems to be appropriate.
UPDATE : i watched Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me again, for the first time in 20+ years, after watching the below. as it happens, had i watched it before, the series would have made a lot more sense. i forgot loads and loads of what happened in the film, but David Lynch (predictably) did not, and if anything this series seems to be more of a sequel to the film than the TV series. and so makes a very great deal of by gibberish below even more gibberish, but publish and be damned.
the (not particularly) delicate subject here is Twin Peaks. specifically, it is the "new" (rather, recent) revival which they did, it apparently being called the (or a) "limited event series". having considered any which way there is to do this, it is clear there is no possible way to write of the subject without giving some, or a lot, of it all away. so, a *** SPOILER WARNING *** in a very real sense exists for this entire post, or at the least from here on out.
exactly how many more warnings, or words of caution, would you like before you proceed? i suspect the above is sufficient, and yes, by all means feel free to just sit and admire that splendid bouncing text rather than read any more of this.
let me take a step back 3, maybe 4, years. when a return of Twin Peaks was announced, of course my interest was caught. yes, like many, i was a "big fan" of the original thing - all of it, be it both series (although in the UK we had it as one) and indeed the film, what had (and this is important for later) David Bowie in it. scattered across this blog are random elements which say i could feasibly called a "proper fan", what with me owning things like the board game, the Diane tape, books, etc.
i was, however, hesitant to get too excited. yes, Twin Peaks as it was in its entirety at this stage brilliant, innovative, much loved, cherished and fondly remembered. also, it felt complete. certainly, sure, a million and more stories were possible after the concluding episode, but essentially the whole thing felt satisfactorily finished, with the ending being a pretty much perfect blend of ambiguity and finality. the film was a nice bonus, rounding some things out but adding extremely little.
so, a return, or "revival", was announced. this was to much fanfare and excitement. and then that drifted away. problems kicked off early on, and thanks to absolutely everything needing to be on social media, it played out for all to see. without lingering on the details, there were some arguments between David Lynch and those financing it, which in a short version led to it all being cancelled, then being back on. alarm bells rang for me, and no doubt a few others. if a project of this presumed scope and size could be ditched then back on based on what seemed to be whims, perhaps this was all to be just a little to breezy and casual.
other problems (of sorts) kicked in. many of the original cast were happy to return. some were not, like for instance Lara Flynn Boyle. a couple of actors who did not return - David Bowie in particular - had David Lynch react in a way which seemed to suggest he felt betrayed by them for the casual reason of being dead when he required them not to be. but, he plodded on, and so all 18 episodes of his new vision came to be.
further alarm bells sounded when the series aired. it was launched with much fanfare, enthusiasm and excitement, with many people declaring the first episode or two being a triumph, the greatest thing ever to happen to television, etc, and so on. and then all conversation, coverage, celebration and mentions of it kind of drifted off, possibly around the third, forth or fifth episode. oh. maybe my assumptions or presumptions were correct, then, and the return to Twin Peaks was essentially a nice idea but not a very practical one.
then here we are. a couple of years after it was all broadcast, and a couple of years after it was released on what some of you and i would refer to as "home video", the price of the DVD (and indeed Blu Ray) box set dropped to somewhere slightly north of £10, making it tempting enough to go. i opted for the DVD variation, recalling that my Mum loved the original too, and so if it was any good then it would be easier to send her the DVD set i bought. this set shall not be posted to my Mum at any given time soon, or ever.
you wish for a plot overview? the fact that such does not exist on the back of the DVD box pretty much sums up your chances of this. in essence, or ostensibly, twenty five years after the final events we, the world, got to see of Twin Peaks, "good" Agent Cooper is commencing a journey to return from where he has been, presumably to stop and send back "bad" Agent Cooper.......
perhaps this is me having a hitherto unknown streak of millennial / snowflake sense of entitlement, but i had reasonably expected a series called Twin Peaks to - as a minimum - mostly be set in the town of Twin Peaks. further, i had taken it would mostly feature Agent Cooper, doing smart Agent Cooper like FBI things. but of course this is David Lynch, and a David Lynch in a time when "subvert audience expectations" is a thing, no matter how much damage such does to reputation (refer last series of Game Of Thrones) or box office (refer Solo and The Last Jedi). so, in one of these aspects of expectation, we seem to get Twin Peaks as a pan-American metaphorical, metaphysical "state of mind" thing rather than literal. as in, David Lynch goes right ahead and covers ground that he has not touched on before, except for the times when he hammered such a concept to death in Blue Velvet, Wild At Heart, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, etc.
do we at least get Agent Cooper doing smart Agent Cooper things in this? no. i totes get why interest and coverage dropped off when it did as it was being broadcast, for if you have nothing nice to say about that which you love then it is probably best to remain silent. two (or three) episodes of "new" Twin Peaks in which the main plot is an Agent Cooper, quasi incarnated as a quasi deaf mute insurance salesman called Dougie, being unable to work out how to go pee-pee would be sufficient for a few to say "let me not punish myself by watching further".
oh, sure, we get a fair (substantial) bit of "evil" Agent Cooper, for those who recall the conclusion of the original Twin Peaks, running about, generally doing evil things. you have noticed the repeat of the spoiler warning, yeah? much, or many, of his evil ways seem to be concerning ensuring that "good" Agent Cooper remains trapped in the place with the red curtain, or dead. one of the more interesting twists is when he (please see the spoiler warnings) turns out to be on a mission to kill one resident of Twin Peaks, a particularly nasty, vile and unpleasant character who seems to serve no purpose whatsoever but to upset viewers, who it seems to turn out is actually the son of "evil" Agent Cooper and no lesser a person than Audrey Horne. whereas this lurked as a story deeply in the background then ends up launched on an unsuspecting audience, the general sense it gives is that perhaps this line would have been a much, much, much (much) better story to have in place than a good deal of the irrelevant, red herring waffle that populates the slight majority of the 18 episodes. but, what do i know that David Lynch does not.
as far as i could work out as it went along, i, we, the audience, get Agent Cooper as Agent Cooper for, in total running time, a little north of one episode of the show. we are treated to significantly more of him as Dougie, and a fair bit of him as "evil" Agent Cooper. congratulations on subverting expectations, then - well done, you. but why, i wonder, is it all of a sudden so really bad and unacceptable to give audiences what they want from a show?
biggest disappointment for me? oddly not that most of Twin Peaks is set outside of Twin Peaks. nor the fact that, mostly, Agent Cooper is not Agent Cooper. the biggest groan, my "well that's just stupid" thought, came when they went right ahead and made Diane a "person", as such. played by Laura Dern, no less, showcasting the deft versatility David Lynch has always displayed when choosing to work with as wide a variety of actors and actresses as possible.
undoubtedly many were thrilled to see Diane "made real", as it were. equally they will be thrilled to see the part played by Laura Dern, who i have nothing against. a select few will have been even more delighted, wish come true stuff, to see Agent Cooper and Diane have something of a that sort of thing (sex) scene. for me it was all best left as a "great unknown". the idea that you never knew if Diane was real or not, if he was sending the tapes off or that was just his name for his smart cassette recorder, was part of the charm. a minor point, perhaps, but not without precedent. would, for instance, Pulp Fiction still be Pulp Fiction if the audience knew as fact what exactly was in the briefcase?
yes, indeed, i am quite aware of the "fan service" going on here. at many, or several, or two levels. there is probably a fanatical fan sect who always dreamed of Diane being real and Agent Cooper engaging in that sort of thing with her. but also there is possibly an unrelenting faction of Blue Velvet fans that have dreamed a dream of seeing Kyle and Laura do it; a dream they have not relinquished since the late 80s. here you go, then.
the most distressing aspect, for me, was without question the decision to recast the David Bowie (originally quite minor and very abstract) role as a massive kettle. no, i am not making this up. perhaps just rewriting the series so as not to need the David Bowie character might have been a better idea, but what do i know. making this worse is of course that they appear to have gotten someone to come along and do a (very) bad Bowie impression of Bowie doing his (extremely) bad Southern State drawl. not much in the world acts as a stark reminder that one of your heroes, your idols, is dead quite the same way as a respected director going "oh f***, he's dead? really? quick, get me the means to make a kettle, the biggest one ever, or i will use a regular one and some camera trickery".
make no mistake, for in this instance the owls probably are what they seem. above is David Lynch carving his vision of how David Bowie should be, a kettle, out of styrofoam. i have not seen American Gods, but i seem to recall reading that for the show they cast Gillian Anderson out of X Files for the Bowie role. that seems like a better idea, but i am loathe if not reticent to question David Lynch. except for the parts where i have here.
how about that last episode? i am assuming that if you have read this far, that you have heeded the lovely spoiler warnings and so on, you have no problem reading of this. whereas episode seventeen gives it all a "logical" conclusion, one gets an episode eighteen. for fans of such, yes, this is where one gets the Laura Dern / Kyle MacLachlan sex scene, so off you go. the only way i can think of to describe this episode (other than, or including, that sort of thing) is to say David Lynch went "hey. i have a great idea. i have seen those British shows Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes and i liked what i saw. let me just quickly turn this new series, and the one before it, and the film, into one whole bit massive ambiguous, time travel trap loop sort of thing.". no, i am not sure if i particularly liked it or not. certainly i found it interesting.
and, to be fair, this was set up right in the first episode (of this "new" series) with the variations of the 'glass box' scene. indeed, you could argue it was set up in either the original series or the Fire Walk With Me film. i do not remember which, but there was, i am sure, a scene where Agent Cooper clocked he could time travel, if only slightly, on a point on a particular stretch of road. unless i am quite confused and that was in X Files.
maybe that (possible) influence speaks of the "issues". whereas Twin Peaks broke incredible ground by what it did within the constraints of television, things have changed. this is a Twin Peaks very much informed by how television shows now simply ignore the constraints. it is a Twin Peaks informed by many shows, with Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad being the two very big and obvious ones. essentially, where once Twin Peaks broke ground and showed what could be done with television, now Twin Peaks is just another example of how television meant for mature audiences are made. that is perhaps the greatest sin, under no circumstances should Twin Peaks have been made to be "just another show".
none of the particularly graphic or (highly) disturbing scenes in the show ever felt like they were "pushing boundaries", or relevant to the concept, or anything but "this is now what is expected in shows like this". following the pack rather than setting the pace is not something i would have wished to befall either Twin Peaks or David Lynch.
it would be wrong to say i "hated" this new Twin Peaks as there was much good and interesting. and yet, i counter, it would be quite wrong to say i "liked" this new Twin Peaks because, well, see most of the above i guess. fairness, i believe, would be to say that i experienced it. which, knowing and admiring David Lynch's work over the years, is in all likelihood exactly what his ambition was.
yes, that Angelo Badalamenti theme remains. indeed yes, it remains haunting, beautiful, seductive and inspiring goosebumps in those touched by the show who hear it.
should you have read this far, then it is likely you have either already seen this revival, or have absolutely no interest in doing so. meaning that there is less point than usual (which is not much) in me making any suggestion as to if someone else not me should or should not watch it.
going through what i have written, and going through the discs to grab images to compensate for the (poorly written) waffle endured, i think i have changed my mind. often i looked at scenes of what i saw and went "oh yeah". perhaps, like life itself, this "new" Twin Peaks must be endured and confused progressing forward, understood and appreciated going back.
this has been a very strange experience. i am not sure, but i suspect i want more.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment