Around the dinner table, the conversation was lively. Thank you but for now, the forum has been archived.
I had a dog
His name was Rover
And when he died
He died all over
😉
- /< /\ /> -
I had a dog
His name was Rover
And when he died
He died all over
😉
- /< /\ /> -
You know, we could re-name this thread "Doggerel about Dogs."
Or, since this is a Twin Peaks forum and Dougie was kind of a hound dog, we could call it "Dougie's Doggie Doggerel"!
😉
- /< /\ /> -
Can we define some terms of reference here, before the thread descends - as it will - into bickering?
Are you merely passing comment on the incidents, or are you proposing the show is reinforcing misogynistic tendencies by having many female victims? Do you suspect/believe Lynch and Frost are presenting a misogynistic agenda, or that the show is somehow indicative - with the corollary that it is accepting of - the perception of casual (and not so casual) misogyny in society?
My own view is, the show, from its very beginning, was always based around violent acts against women but that in itself is not necessarily misogynistic in intent. I say this because, Laura, although a victim, is also portrayed as a hero and a possible saviour. She is also still very much loved and missed by the people who knew her (Bobby's reaction, for example) and the ongoing - or continuing - investigation into the entire manner of her death and subsequent events seems to be much more than simply going through the motions to close an old, cold case.
Other female victims have been treated in a relatively neutral way, with no glorification of the violence done to them and certainly no appearance of approval or appeal to prurient interest in violence towards women. If anything, they are shown for what they are; victims of circumstance, sometimes for making the wrong choices or for trying to do the right thing.
I believe the narrative - within the framework of Twin Peaks' continuity - is reflecting the way women are often treated, rather than setting an agenda.
I'm with you Sam. Since the beginning there has been a very clear portrait of the violence and exploitation of women & girls. I have multiple times argued against it being a misogynistic act by Lynch, but a "real" picture of what happens in the world. I can't off the top of my head name many female characters the original line up who were not victimized or exploited in some way. In fact, every time I do try think of them, they are only background or walk-on characters like Donna's 2 sisters.
My partner commented last night that this was the "violence against women episode." I would have to agree and I don't think it was done in any glamorized or approving way. You have one case of intimate partner violence and two cases of super-psychopath rampage violence. And yet the Mitchum brother was so mellow with Candy smacking him upside the head with a remote control. Go figure.
Yes, it shows violence against women. Unfortunately that shit happens. What it doesn't do is excuse it, as far as I can see. The males who have been violent are portrayed as having something wrong with their character - not it being the woman's fault.
I'd say, in general, the males & females on the show are pretty evenly matched on arguing or outwitting each other. If you take Richard Horne - the guy is such an actory-looking actor. By that I mean he could easily be cast as a bit-of-a-bad-boy-but-he-gets-away-with-it. He's portrayed as a thug.
Nothing would ever make it 'all right' - but I think a warts-and-all portrayal shows that it's not condoned and is illustrating a sad fact of life.
goodness - it's adding up.
bothersome, to say the least.
I suggest you to take a look at Antichrist by Trier.
The OP has a good point that should not be dismissed. There's been a lot of violence against women throughout this series. Overt, unjustified violence, without remorse.
Several of Lynch's works have had a strong element of misogyny. It's not a new thing. I'd worry if someone was totally content about it.
It's not enough to say it's representative of reality and thereby excuse it with a wave of the hand. That has always been a sorry bit of logic... it can excuse anything. Somewhere in reality every execrable crime, bias, and offence has been committed. We must ask why they are being represented. (Besides, I never took Lynch's films as documentaries.)
I do not feel the misogyny necessarily invalidates what we are watching. I found this particular episode rather hollow and cold. But the dearth of affect and character identification is a theme of the whole show. So, I reserve judgement.
Yes, it shows violence against women. Unfortunately that shit happens. What it doesn't do is excuse it, as far as I can see. The males who have been violent are portrayed as having something wrong with their character - not it being the woman's fault.
Thank you for summing up what I was trying to say. You said it much better. 🙂
I should also add that there is and always has been representation of misogyny in TP but I never believed the representation to be created out of misogyny.
The OP has a good point that should not be dismissed. There's been a lot of violence against women throughout this series. Overt, unjustified violence, without remorse.
Several of Lynch's works have had a strong element of misogyny. It's not a new thing. I'd worry if someone was totally content about it.
It's not enough to say it's representative of reality and thereby excuse it with a wave of the hand. That has always been a sorry bit of logic... it can excuse anything. Somewhere in reality every execrable crime, bias, and offence has been committed. We must ask why they are being represented. (Besides, I never took Lynch's films as documentaries.)
I do not feel the misogyny necessarily invalidates what we are watching. I found this particular episode rather hollow and cold. But the dearth of affect and character identification is a theme of the whole show. So, I reserve judgement.
No, some CHARACTERS have misogyny, NOT David Lynch/Mark Frost. HUGE difference. Read again what Sam wrote.
Thank you, Karen.
I think there would be a problem if these violent acts were somehow portrayed as meaningless, acceptable and committed by "likeable" characters. Instead we have violence which impacts, scares and disturbs the audience, committed by evil, broken people and non-human entities. Art is meant to show us a mirror to ourselves, and the reflection is all part of the healing process.
This is a regular theme of Lynch's from Blue Velvet onwards, it's in almost everything he's done apart from the Straight Story. This is no casual violence for entertainment purposes, a moral judgement is being made about the world we live in (and particularly America). It's particularly marked in TP: The Return; things have got worse in the last 25 years.
My interpretation would be the vulnerability is the magnet for violence and evil here. Is what happened to women like the trailer-beating in episode 10 really that much worse than the tortured life that Leland Palmer lived? How would you rather go out, all things being equal? Either killed by a deranged acquaintance over having witnessed a crime, or conscious of the fact that you repeatedly raped your own daughter from the time she was 11-years old? When viewed in that context, one is decidedly worse than the other, at least in my mind.
Of course, at the heart of this entire drama is how much the latter of the above "allowed" what happened to happen, rather than be a truly innocent "victim" of Bob's doings - but that theme permeates all of Twin Peaks-dom. To a certain extent, everyone makes their bed.
And we've seen plenty of "strong women" characters. From the scheming Catherine Martel of the original series, to the scheming Audrey Horne. Essentially the female equivalents of Ben Horne and all the shady male characters we've met in terms of knowing what they want and stopping at nothing to get it.
I have this notion though about what the OP is describing. It seems to me that Lynch has been very much inspired by the passing of Stan Kubrick. We've already had the 2001-esque "stargate journey" sort of redone with the atomic bomb test in episode 8. Now what we're seeing seems a direct tribute to A Clockwork Orange, with the most obvious visual being the bound and tied Johnny Horne being unable to render assistance while his mother is beaten and degraded by a home intruder.
But if you really go back and pay attention to A Clockwork Orange, I think one of the undercurrent themes there is an illustration of the sort of Jungian way that the male subconscious works. This might sound unsettling to some, and at the risk of bloviating I'll make it as simple as can be. Deep in the male subconscious, especaially as depicted in our dreams, women appear to us in what are usually one of two common forms; either they are motherly/teacherly and give us direction, or the are objects of sexual desire/conquest. Those are the archtypes. And there's a bit of that going on in the world of Twin Peaks here. Consider that we have numerous characters who fit the "motherly" bill - which keep in mind doesn't mean that they have to be perfect mothers, just that they fit that distinction and are not confused with objects of male desire. Here we may list Mrs. Palmer, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Tremond, etc. etc. I would say Lucy fits this role too - and while we see her connected with themes of sexuality (reproduction with multiple male partners, specifically), it's always through the guise of her eventually being a "mother" to the child - and in a way that makes us sort of unspokenly uncomfortable about the idea of Lucy even being sexual at all. Think about it; imagining Lucy and Andy in bed is like thinking of your parents making whoopie; gross, yet obviously a biological necessity for both.
On the other hand we have women who are (at times aggressively) sexually pursued - and you're right, there seem to be a lot more of them (which, truth be told, is kind of common for how we boys dream). Anyone from Audrey and Josie in the original series (Josie in particular played the "vulnerable girl" stereotype so perfectly, even while scheming), to Darya, Tammy, Shelly, Ronnette, Laura, etc. etc. You get the picture and there's no point naming them all.
What's really interesting is when the series has taken characters that would normally be depicted in more of the "motherly" role, due to their advanced age, and instead challenged the accepted norm by making them seem to be sexually active creatures that confuse our minds into lumping them into both groups; and here the best character representations are again Catherine and now Diane. As an homage to Catherine, we might say she had a toe dipped in both worlds.
You can also look at the way men are portrayed, and if we want to get really/creepy divisive (not my intention), look in particular at the way caucasian men are depicted. Every. Single. Bad. Guy. Leland, Bob, Mike, the Arm, Windom Earle, Richard Horne, Chad, Leo. Every scumbag, drug dealing, crime committing, woman-raping, incestual, homicidal lunatic in the series is basically a white guy.
So don't just feel sorry for the poor women. That's a typical male reaction to the stereotypical "damsel in distress". And really it just feeds our subconscious desire to think that those poor women "need" us to rescue them. Why, even the many faceted Audrey needed Cooper to come "rescue" her (after prayer) at One Eyed Jack's.
Oh darling, I do declare!
Fire walk with 
