Badalamenti Fan,
why disallow others their right to a reaction about a TV programme they obviously have emotional investment in?
I don't mind the long scenes personally, I found the French girl very slowly getting her stuff together while Gordon grinned like a cat that got the cream, very funny.
To answer your questions in the best way I can:
How are you defining pleasing your audience? The film maker needs to at least make it interesting (on some level) so that they have an audience left at the end. Otherwise why bother making the film (personal viewing?). Maybe it's a way of whittling down so only those most worthy are left? This surely goes against your mass mediated art concept.
I'm unfamiliar with the prevailing conventions of modern television against which you are measuring this high art so in an attempt to answer your second question I searched through your argument and I'd like to ask you: How did watching a lengthy scene of a French woman putting on her shoes and lipstick challenge me to examine my own preferences and prejudices, expand my horizons or challenge me to reassess my worldview or orientation with the social world?
You had lots of lofty ideals that you would like to apply to Twin Peaks The Return but sadly in your argument you failed to back it up with any examples of how The Return has achieved this.
P.S. I enjoyed this episode very much. It was very nostalgic with lots of little nods to the past (both from FWWM, this series and series 1 & 2). I have an almost insatiable curiosity and I'm more than happy to allow things to unfold in their meandering way but I have also understanding that my view may not be shared by others.
In any case, frustration is a success. No reaction or meh reaction would be far worse 😉
Badalamenti Fan,
why disallow others their right to a reaction about a TV programme they obviously have emotional investment in?
I don't mind the long scenes personally, I found the French girl very slowly getting her stuff together while Gordon grinned like a cat that got the cream, very funny.
To answer your questions in the best way I can:
How are you defining pleasing your audience? The film maker needs to at least make it interesting (on some level) so that they have an audience left at the end. Otherwise why bother making the film (personal viewing?). Maybe it's a way of whittling down so only those most worthy are left? This surely goes against your mass mediated art concept.I'm unfamiliar with the prevailing conventions of modern television against which you are measuring this high art so in an attempt to answer your second question I searched through your argument and I'd like to ask you: How did watching a lengthy scene of a French woman putting on her shoes and lipstick challenge me to examine my own preferences and prejudices, expand my horizons or challenge me to reassess my worldview or orientation with the social world?
You had lots of lofty ideals that you would like to apply to Twin Peaks The Return but sadly in your argument you failed to back it up with any examples of how The Return has achieved this.
P.S. I enjoyed this episode very much. It was very nostalgic with lots of little nods to the past (both from FWWM, this series and series 1 & 2). I have an almost insatiable curiosity and I'm more than happy to allow things to unfold in their meandering way but I have also understanding that my view may not be shared by others.
Hi Gary-- thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we may be talking past each other, so I'll try to clarify what I was and wasn't wishing to convey.
1) I wasn't making "an argument," as such, and I certainly was not making one that I was submitting for feedback about the quality of my argumentation (Had I been doing so, I would have asked you to evaluate my argument on different terms than whether the "evidence" I presented was sufficient)
Instead, I'm trying to gently nudge the folks whose overwhelming response to David Lynch's challenges to viewers is to complain that the narrative arc/editing of The Return "drags," or is otherwise tedious, as if the only measure of evaluating Lynch's work was to compare it to the snappy writing and editing of traditional genre TV or contemporary "prestige TV." Let's recall, with respect to the former, that the impetus for snappy writing and editing was typically to advance the plot efficiently enough to allow for 8 minutes of commercials in a 30-minute timeslot. We're clearly not in Kansas anymore.
2) why disallow others their right to a reaction about a TV programme they obviously have emotional investment in?
I don't feel I've "disallowed" anyone the right to feel anything-- I certainly didn't intend to. Rather, I am reacting to their reaction-- specifically, by expressing that I am growing weary of hearing complaints or descriptions of how they would prefer the show to be different than it is (or, worse still, that it would somehow be "better" if it were this way). These gripes betray a set of expectations that I think Lynch clearly and continuously aims to defy. There are many other topics and threads in this forum that echo such complaints and echo responses like mine, particularly after Part 12. (Sam's was especially good, I thought) Snap negative assessments strike me as both superficial (as many others have remarked, we have yet to see the entire series, so how can we judge pacing and editing against the long arc of narrative?) and not very thought out, like knee-jerk reactions from armchair quarterbacks. I'm eager to hear about how people react, then how they examine their reactions-- something your post does effectively but many neglect.
3) How are you defining pleasing your audience? The film maker needs to at least make it interesting (on some level) so that they have an audience left at the end. Otherwise why bother making the film (personal viewing?). Maybe it's a way of whittling down so only those most worthy are left? This surely goes against your mass mediated art concept.
Interesting questions. I'd argue, to the contrary, that, as a septuagenarian coming out of de facto retirement after an iconic career-- and, moreover, having negotiated assiduously for "final cut" rights-- Lynch has total artistic license and probably feels little pressure to have an audience left at the end. There may well be no subsequent Lynch film or television series, if we take him at what he has said in interviews/press. And, frankly, I think that merits a certain measure of respect from viewers and reverence from fans.
More generally, re: art vs. entertainment or 'high-art' vs. 'mass-mediated art' (or postmodern 'television,' or whatever would be the name for 'TV' that is primarily streamed on-demand rather than broadcast)... Game of Thrones is produced to maximize its audience, something that has proven wildly successful worldwide. Lynch's viewers self-select for this sort of thing, comprising a smaller audience that comparatively lowers the stakes for Showtime financially. It strikes me The Return is something of a trophy for Showtime-- if it proves profitable for them it will more likely have to do with effective 'narrow-casting' marketing re: the streaming subscription than any self-conscious effort on Lynch's part to secure or retain fans.
Free of fan service, we're in a space where Lynch has the relative autonomy to take real risks and deliver something to a mass audience that would never be allowed through under normal circumstances. Showtime deserves a measure of credit for underwriting such a risk, but I have every confidence they know this may be a loss leader. As such, I feel lucky we are able to experience this bizarre and happy accident of Showtime's ambitions toward prestige and Lynch's elevated popular art (or mass-mediated art, etc.)
Frustratingly, I ran into some formatting issues in the previous post. Here's the rest:
4) How did watching a lengthy scene of a French woman putting
on her shoes and lipstick challenge me to examine my own preferences
and prejudices, expand my horizons or challenge me to reassess my
worldview or orientation with the social world?
This is the question I would encourage the impatient to ask themselves.
If the answer one comes up with is "No, it does not," more power to you.
How it might manage to do so for another viewer would be by inviting her to
think beyond the "like/dislike" binary of Facebook (or, thumbs-up/thumbs
down before it). Audience opinion in the aggregate is important, individual
judgments of whether something is "good" or "bad" make us feel important.
If you find yourself willing to return to this scene, puzzle over it, or
articulate why you found it to be a problem/not a problem-- then I think together we will have made my point. For instance, why do you suppose you found it funny while others found it infuriating? I'd like to hear more folks share what they were able to appreciate about it, now that we've heard from the impatient.
Something that provokes impassioned discussion on this forum is something that fits my criteria for an artwork-- something that demands suspension of judgment and an effort at understanding.
I've been challenged to understand your perspective and clarify mine. I've been challenged to understand what my feelings of impatience, confusion and bewilderment
tell me about what I seek/value as a consumer. For the first time,
I have the attention span and curiosity to go back and watch Lynch's
3-plus hour Inland Empire, what I find to be his most challenging film.
I'll probably paraphrase this poorly, but IIRC, The philosopher
Gilles Deleuze proposed that statements of opinion/judgments of taste
are more fundamentally antisocial or of fundamentally more limited
social value than the asking of questions. Further, absolute judgments of
good and bad in a particular case may all too easily be generalized or
extrapolated into irrational/universal prejudices. I'm keen to get to
more questions raised and more discussion rather than statements of
longing for a different final cut than the one we've received.
My issue is it just drags. There's stuff that i take away from episodes, but I feel that after 12 episodes, the same content could have been covered in 9 with very little being left out.
Why would this be desirable?
Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.
?
I'm sure soon after the premiere someone will make a supercut for youtube that allows you to watch all of the major plot points unfold in, say, an hour. But I am again inclined to ask, why would this be more desirable than the complete film? Much of the experience would be lost, IMO.
Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.
?
I'm sure soon after the premiere someone will make a supercut for youtube that allows you to watch all of the major plot points unfold in, say, an hour. But I am again inclined to ask, why would this be more desirable than the complete film? Much of the experience would be lost, IMO.
I was being ironic, actually, BF.
Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.
?
I'm sure soon after the premiere someone will make a supercut for youtube that allows you to watch all of the major plot points unfold in, say, an hour. But I am again inclined to ask, why would this be more desirable than the complete film? Much of the experience would be lost, IMO.
I was being ironic, actually, BF.
Oh, I understood! I was just echoing your remark. I'm with you, and Lynch re: telephones and supercuts. My partner and I project the show, cinema-style, every week for our TP-inclined friends. It's a good time, though I suppose we're cutting into Showtime's revenue by hosting 'screenings.'
Hugely disappointed with Ep 12. Few of the scenes worked. The return of Audrey ... well it almost makes you cry. The most effective scene might have been Murphy getting shot and his son seeing him, but coming after Ben Horne's lengthy monologue about fatherhood it lacked subtlety. Not sure whether Cole's trashy French pick-up or Audrey's scene was the worst. Oh dear.
Hugely disappointed with Ep 12. Few of the scenes worked. The return of Audrey ... well it almost makes you cry. The most effective scene might have been Murphy getting shot and his son seeing him, but coming after Ben Horne's lengthy monologue about fatherhood it lacked subtlety. Not sure whether Cole's trashy French pick-up or Audrey's scene was the worst. Oh dear.
Yup, this is pretty much what my series of lengthy posts was addressing.
These judgments re: subtlety, which scenes "worked," and your least favorite scenes do very little to help me or others better interpret what we've seen.
I hope you find the rest of the series more enjoyable.
Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.
?
I'm sure soon after the premiere someone will make a supercut for youtube that allows you to watch all of the major plot points unfold in, say, an hour. But I am again inclined to ask, why would this be more desirable than the complete film? Much of the experience would be lost, IMO.
I was being ironic, actually, BF.
Oh, I understood! I was just echoing your remark. I'm with you, and Lynch re: telephones and supercuts. My partner and I project the show, cinema-style, every week for our TP-inclined friends. It's a good time, though I suppose we're cutting into Showtime's revenue by hosting 'screenings.'
I think what made my post confusing was that I used the pronoun "you" where "one" would have conveyed the general whom to which I was referring. No, we're definitely on the same side on this issue!! Writing for the web is tricky when it comes to tone-- my bad.
You know how when you listen to an audiobook on your ipod you can play it at double speed? Is there any sort of video app that can do the same thing? I get the point of the loooonnnnng pauses and slllloooooooow pacing but I don't need it, especially on a re-watching. I'd love to be able to re-watch this episode (and perhaps a couple others, too) in about 27 minutes.
Consider using VLC player. It's available on Mac as well.
Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.
?
I'm sure soon after the premiere someone will make a supercut for youtube that allows you to watch all of the major plot points unfold in, say, an hour. But I am again inclined to ask, why would this be more desirable than the complete film? Much of the experience would be lost, IMO.
I was being ironic, actually, BF.
Oh, I understood! I was just echoing your remark. I'm with you, and Lynch re: telephones and supercuts. My partner and I project the show, cinema-style, every week for our TP-inclined friends. It's a good time, though I suppose we're cutting into Showtime's revenue by hosting 'screenings.'
I think what made my post confusing was that I used the pronoun "you" where "one" would have conveyed the general whom to which I was referring. No, we're definitely on the same side on this issue!! Writing for the web is tricky when it comes to tone-- my bad.
No worries. I didn't get that you got me either! We're as bad as Sarah and the kids at the cash till...
Or Gordon and Albert.
(I should just have posted the video)
For me, it's frustrating to wait a week for the next episode. But the pacing makes sense. I believe this kind of storytelling is just one of another things that does not match up with our current culture. David Lynch's daily meditating probably has a whole lot to do with this long game. I started looking at the tempo of my own day, movements and choices, always trying to get something done to move on to the next. I eat fast. I have productivity requirements at work. But moving that way is not enjoyable and you miss all the nuances happening around you. I really feel forced by this show to savor all the minutia, silences, all the things that are needed to make a moment of action really POP - Dale fighting off an attacker for example after a good deal of tedious Dougie stuff. I don't think you can enjoy this episodic movie and show up with the same expectations you bring to your daily life. This show is out there and it won't be more or less than that regardless of your opinion, expectations or understanding.
Badalamenti Fan,
Just wanted to say, I feel ya! Albeit, you've been able to say what I've wanted to say in a much more rational and eloquent way.
I became a fan of Lynch when I checked out the original Twin Peaks from the library about 12 years ago. My boyfriend (now husband) found the pacing to be unbearable, and every time I would watch another Lynch film he would be overcome with anxiety and have to leave the room. I on the other hand loved the way his films made me feel. Yes it was frustrating and yes it made me anxious, but in the same way anticipating a surprise birthday party makes one anxious. It's exciting!
So while I do understand the frustration the slow pacing causes some viewers, what I don't understand is why they expected anything different from Lynch!? This has been his style from Eraserhead to Inland Empire! I learned early on not to have any expectations for answers from Lynch or for him to tell a story in a 'traditional' way, but to just enjoy the ride while it lasted (and to be grateful for every second I get to spend in his world).
I joined this forum hoping to share ideas with other Lynch and TP fans- but I've been disappointed that half of the comments are criticisms on the decisions made by the artist. (Why does everyone think they are a filmmaker?) So, I wanted to thank you, BF, for your posts.
Fire walk with