I have been thinking quite a bit about the reaction to Part 12. One of my friends just watched it, and hated it. There is a whole thread on here titled "AAAARRRGHH" or whatever. And, as I said in that other thread, it took me the whole process of thinking it through and making our podcast for me to come around to the level of appreciation I have now. I had to work at it, I mean.
Anyway, what I started thinking about is how there are different types of mystery. When it comes to a murder (who killed Laura Palmer?) or weird metaphysical stuff (what is the nature of Bob?) we are enrapt. We want answers, but enjoy the questions. I don't mean to speak for everybody; just that I think this is the tendency.
But, then, there are other, much more banal mysteries in life. What did Tina tell Charlie?, for example. And here we tend to be frustrated at being left in a state of questioning. Perhaps because it seems like learning the answer should be much more straightforward. "You're not going to tell me what she said!?"
So, I don't think this is about trolling the audience so much as playing with that duality of mystery itself. Can we manage to enjoy this kind of mystery, such as the one we are presented with regarding Richard's parents/upbringing, where the biggest clues may well lie in what goes unsaid? It is frustrating that neither Ben nor Frank mention Audrey, and neither Audrey nor Charlie mention Richard, but what could this imply about these relationships?
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to watch this. You're free to be frustrated and complain. As Chad says, it's a free country. But I, at least, am trying be like Candie, who it seems to me is able to look at traffic and experience the sublimity of the mystery of life.
I don't know. Just some thoughts.
I have been thinking quite a bit about the reaction to Part 12. One of my friends just watched it, and hated it. There is a whole thread on here titled "AAAARRRGHH" or whatever. And, as I said in that other thread, it took me the whole process of thinking it through and making our podcast for me to come around to the level of appreciation I have now. I had to work at it, I mean.
Anyway, what I started thinking about is how there are different types of mystery. When it comes to a murder (who killed Laura Palmer?) or weird metaphysical stuff (what is the nature of Bob?) we are enrapt. We want answers, but enjoy the questions. I don't mean to speak for everybody; just that I think this is the tendency.
But, then, there are other, much more banal mysteries in life. What did Tina tell Charlie?, for example. And here we tend to be frustrated at being left in a state of questioning. Perhaps because it seems like learning the answer should be much more straightforward. "You're not going to tell me what she said!?"
So, I don't think this is about trolling the audience so much as playing with that duality of mystery itself. Can we manage to enjoy this kind of mystery, such as the one we are presented with regarding Richard's parents/upbringing, where the biggest clues may well lie in what goes unsaid? It is frustrating that neither Ben nor Frank mention Audrey, and neither Audrey nor Charlie mention Richard, but what could this imply about these relationships?
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to watch this. You're free to be frustrated and complain. As Chad says, it's a free country. But I, at least, am trying be like Candie, who it seems to me is able to look at traffic and experience the sublimity of the mystery of life.
I don't know. Just some thoughts.
I loved the Candie analogy. Although the Chad one, ironically, might be a truer one: it accumulates “Candie’s” purely aesthetic way of perception, Cooper’s cognitive enthusiasm (which in this case is quite similar to a desire to reconstruct the proper narrative) and whatever metaphysical or subconsciously twisted interest one may have in Lynch.
Some thoughts I had in another thread. (Not sure how to link properly!)
Fire walk with