I kept hoping...
It was Lynch playing with fan expectations.
Lol..."fans will expect narrative development, dialogue and atmosphere...
...well I'll show them"!!!
That reminds me, it's been a while since I've read Naked Lunch. Oh, wait, that book also contains "narrative development, dialogue and atmosphere."
Naked Lunch did have those things...but this episode did not. I mean if the French woman was getting high on pesticide I might have enjoyed it more...
The again Lynch didn't write the book or direct the movie so I'm quite unclear on what exactly your point is.
Defending an artist by bringing up a different artist whose work is in a different medium isn't really helping Lynch or part 12 in any way.
Upon reading your well thought out critique of my initial post, my first thought was "Does it seem to be persisting?" Followed by, "Good, thank you. Does it seem to be persisting? Yes, hello? Yes, hello? Good, thank you. Yes, hello? Look at that picture. Does it seem to be persisting? Good, thank you."
Which actually ended up leading me to think about the cut up technique in general and associate it with how Lynch is telling the story of TPTR on the screen. Thinking about how Kerouac and Ginsberg, et al assembled a very small portion of "The Word Horde," etc. into what became Naked Lunch is what led to my reply. Not to mention, Naked Lunch is a less obscure reference than The Cut Ups. I do not think it's a stretch to imagine that Lynch has edited the film/narrative in a similar manner but was much more purpsoeful while reassembling it. He has many hours of footage and almost 18 hours to tell his and Frost's story. The beginning, middle and end were already known. Why not experiment along the way?
I think of the narrative of TPTR as not only being mirrored by Cooper but as a collage moving through time ("Life is a cut up"). Part 12 is akin to ten pages out of Naked Lunch, for example, in motion on the screen. Parts of the collage are slowed way down to concentrate the focus on a single moment and allow the viewer to mediate on it - to breathe - and it initiates the viewer to examine the thoughts in his/her head and feelings at the time. It can be frustrating, sure, just like parts of Naked Lunch were (certainly not as frustrating as The Cut Ups film, Towers Open Fire or the books comprising the Nova Trilogy). The scene with the French woman, for example, is a stark reminder of the pace of the post post-modern world. A world in which, in America at least, one can press a button and a pizza will show up at the front door in 30min or less. No need for an utterance of speech, phone or computer. Instant gratification is the norm. 'Cliche alert:' Why not stop and smell the roses once in a while? Why be so driven by the end-game or the result as to not enjoy or contemplate and examine what happens while traveling from point A to point B? When I'm confronted with a scene like the aforementioned I think why and what. Why is he choosing this scene to play on so long. What is he trying to impart? For me, the scene contrasted different cultures and generations, the evolution of film scenes, set up a joke, and caused me to question the role of the French woman. I laughed for a bit, became a little agitated, and when I noticed that Albert was mirroring my agitation at that moment I laughed again and enjoyed the scene even more. Lynch used Albert to connect with the viewer. How great is that. I'm an active participant! I can understand viewers who might be frustrated or agitated and respond in kind emotionally, because they're waiting to get on with the plots or waiting for beloved characters to return/develop, or waiting for whatever else they're waiting for. What I can't understand is how one can see "narrative, dialogue, and atmosphere" in Naked Lunch, a nonlinear narrative with a plot that is anything but clear, and not see those things in Twin Peaks the Return. Yes, even in part 12. Besides, the scene with the French woman is, what, a single sentence, paragraph or page in a book like Naked Lunch? We've only read 120 pages, so to speak. There are 60 more pages to read. What's the rush? I see an issue of trust.
My response to your first reply was in snark. I was replying in kind. For that I apologize. I'm frustrated by the frustration of many viewers. One-line-drive-by-posts with the same complaints, since part 1 and 2 aired, over and over are what caused me to cease discussing this show on the Facebook page and post in this forum. They add little to thoughtful discussion or constructive criticism. I get it, many viewers have emotional connections with characters and places inside the Twin Peaks World and dislike who the characters have become (and/or how unimportant they are now?) or are impatient with how the story is being told. Some of those connections are 25 years old. It makes sense, and perhaps that is part of the point of it all: from blind love to boiling hatred people are reacting and reconnecting with a world that existed only in dusty VHS tapes, weathered pages of books, forums like this one, as well as memory and imagination. That is until the announcement of The Return.
Which brings me to my initial post in this thread: I understand that the expectations were as varied as the number of Twin Peaks fans that exist. My only expectations were that it was going to be darker and a lot more violent. Perhaps that's why I'm not as offended as some are. Playing with the expectations of fans seems to be something that Lynch and Frost were interested in (Or not. It's their story not mine or yours or random viewer x's). So, for example, a particular viewer or viewers pictured Audrey as a successful business woman, married to a powerful business man, kids, mansion the whole bit. Also, she repaired her relationship with her father, which was budding at the end of season 2, and together they're a successful family of plutocrats in the Pacific North West, etc. Yet Lynch and Frost say, "hold my beer . . ." Good on them. It's their vision.
Artists have a long history of pleasing patrons. They needed money to live on, a house, food; sustenance with which to raise a family (in some cases). That changed in the late-19th/early-20th century when artists began to ask, "what is art?" and money was spread out a little bit more. Freed now, artists began intellectual endeavors that caused discomfort, agitation and frustration. Sure, there are artists that compromise their vision in order to be an easier pill to swallow for "the masses." But, there are also artists that don't compromise. They remain true to their vision no matter how it is accepted by "the masses." Lynch is the latter (not certain about Frost).