I have a couple of thoughts based on observations of people's posts on this and other threads.
The first observation I have is how interesting it is that some posters seem to claim some ownership over the Audrey character. I'm not judging, I just find it interesting. It must be testament to the writing and acting of the original series.
With this in mind, it's interesting how some posters think that Audrey should have appeared in the series a lot earlier than she did. And now that she has appeared, some people are disappointed that she hasn't been given the setup they think she deserves.
I read one comment on here where the poster said that something must be wrong - Audrey (or someone as beautiful as her) could never be with someone like "him". I find this an odd statement. Are you saying that someone with a disability or who is smaller of stature could never be with a beautiful person? Maybe it's a cultural difference, but where I live I see a lot of such people holding hands with a beautiful, attractive partner. Just saying.
Second, we also need to remember that with time comes change. Yes, Audrey was young, adventurous and full of the joys of hope which one tends to exhibit in youth. But with age comes experience of meeting different types of people and facing hardships and, as a wise man once said, the older you get "the more of your soul you lose". So if people were expecting the young, and vibrant, highly sexed Audrey they used to admire, then this is not only a reality check for you from a TV series perspective, but it will be an eye opener for you in life too.
People change. And we can call it Lynchian, but in my opinion it's just good common sense to evolve a character.
Back to the story though - to me it seems like an arranged marriage of some sort - a mutually beneficial one. Maybe it started off as love, maybe it didn't.
Guess we'll find out as the series moves on.
I have a couple of thoughts based on observations of people's posts on this and other threads.
The first observation I have is how interesting it is that some posters seem to claim some ownership over the Audrey character. I'm not judging, I just find it interesting. It must be testament to the writing and acting of the original series.
With this in mind, it's interesting how some posters think that Audrey should have appeared in the series a lot earlier than she did. And now that she has appeared, some people are disappointed that she hasn't been given the setup they think she deserves.
I read one comment on here where the poster said that something must be wrong - Audrey (or someone as beautiful as her) could never be with someone like "him". I find this an odd statement. Are you saying that someone with a disability or who is smaller of stature could never be with a beautiful person? Maybe it's a cultural difference, but where I live I see a lot of such people holding hands with a beautiful, attractive partner. Just saying.
Second, we also need to remember that with time comes change. Yes, Audrey was young, adventurous and full of the joys of hope which one tends to exhibit in youth. But with age comes experience of meeting different types of people and facing hardships and, as a wise man once said, the older you get "the more of your soul you lose". So if people were expecting the young, and vibrant, highly sexed Audrey they used to admire, then this is not only a reality check for you from a TV series perspective, but it will be an eye opener for you in life too.
People change. And we can call it Lynchian, but in my opinion it's just good common sense to evolve a character.
Back to the story though - to me it seems like an arranged marriage of some sort - a mutually beneficial one. Maybe it started off as love, maybe it didn't.
Guess we'll find out as the series moves on.
"People change. And we can call it Lynchian, but in my opinion it's just good common sense to evolve a character."
Indeed! Beyond character development, I think Lynch is thematizing death and decay, not as traditionally lofty topics, but as quotidian and universal. Aging takes a toll, psychologically and physically-- it can feel abject and appear grotesque, qualities many people associate--consciously and subconsciously--with disability and mental illness. Lynch shows us that what we recoil from in horror (the macabre) is an inevitable and essential part of the human experience, not something that intrudes fantastically from the beyond.
Audrey is us, as MJ so astutely observed.
I have a couple of thoughts based on observations of people's posts on this and other threads.
The first observation I have is how interesting it is that some posters seem to claim some ownership over the Audrey character. I'm not judging, I just find it interesting. It must be testament to the writing and acting of the original series.
With this in mind, it's interesting how some posters think that Audrey should have appeared in the series a lot earlier than she did. And now that she has appeared, some people are disappointed that she hasn't been given the setup they think she deserves.
I read one comment on here where the poster said that something must be wrong - Audrey (or someone as beautiful as her) could never be with someone like "him". I find this an odd statement. Are you saying that someone with a disability or who is smaller of stature could never be with a beautiful person? Maybe it's a cultural difference, but where I live I see a lot of such people holding hands with a beautiful, attractive partner. Just saying.
Second, we also need to remember that with time comes change. Yes, Audrey was young, adventurous and full of the joys of hope which one tends to exhibit in youth. But with age comes experience of meeting different types of people and facing hardships and, as a wise man once said, the older you get "the more of your soul you lose". So if people were expecting the young, and vibrant, highly sexed Audrey they used to admire, then this is not only a reality check for you from a TV series perspective, but it will be an eye opener for you in life too.
People change. And we can call it Lynchian, but in my opinion it's just good common sense to evolve a character.
Back to the story though - to me it seems like an arranged marriage of some sort - a mutually beneficial one. Maybe it started off as love, maybe it didn't.
Guess we'll find out as the series moves on.
"People change. And we can call it Lynchian, but in my opinion it's just good common sense to evolve a character."
Indeed! Beyond character development, I think Lynch is thematizing death and decay, not as traditionally lofty topics, but as quotidian and universal. Aging takes a toll, psychologically and physically-- it can feel abject and appear grotesque, qualities many people associate--consciously and subconsciously--with disability and mental illness. Lynch shows us that what we recoil from in horror (the macabre) is an inevitable and essential part of the human experience, not something that intrudes fantastically from the beyond.
Audrey is us, as MJ so astutely observed.
I had to look up the word quotidian - but yes, 100% agree 🙂
I get the feeling that Audrey scene was designed to frustrate as much as ameliorate. She is in a dark place, not maybe dark like we'd expect either. I would bet my bottom dollar that her fate in awakening and transcending her situation is intrinsically linked to that of Dale's.
Ok, I was going to sit this one out, but there are a few things I'd like to say
1 - As someone has pointed out, the actor who plays Charlie doesn't have dwarfism. He may have a genetic condition that affected his growth, but at 5'4" it's safe to assume he is not a disabled person or a little person at all. He's a small guy, that's all.
2 - I cannot stress how much veiled prejudice is in observations like "she can't be married to THAT GUY". She can, in fact, different people in shapes and sizes all over the world marry each other. We don't really know anything else about him, if he's a good guy or not, so, It's early to judge.
3 - ONE SCENE is enough to ruin a character for you guys? In an 18-hour season, you are complaining that one scene has destroyed a character simply because you had an idea about her and it's not the same as the director/writers? Way to jump the gun. I'd stick around.
4 - 25 years in a coma? Ben & Sylvia would be all over her trying to get her back to the real world, at the very least. Not to mention potential brain damage, like, severe brain damage. Oh, yeah, the Hornes would also be broke from the hospital bills. Very likely, they would've sold the Great Northern.
5 - Calling Audrey a "diabolic bitch" based on that scene says more about you than about what the character may or may not have become. In the sense that it's mysoginistic as f*ck. We don't have enough to go on and assume those things. Hell, from that scene it's not even clear if she's sane or not!
In my perception it was much more about a woman who is clearly unhappy with her situation, struggling to get out of it as she deals with her seemingly controlling husband.
We don't have enough to assume anything yet, what happened after the accident, etc etc. So calm down and wait for the other episodes, geez. One bad scene doesn't ruin a character.
The one thing we might assume from that scene is that Billy may be the farmer and Chuck may be Richard.
Ok, I was going to sit this one out, but there are a few things I'd like to say
1 - As someone has pointed out, the actor who plays Charlie doesn't have dwarfism. He may have a genetic condition that affected his growth, but at 5'4" it's safe to assume he is not a disabled person or a little person at all. He's a small guy, that's all.
2 - I cannot stress how much veiled prejudice is in observations like "she can't be married to THAT GUY". She can, in fact, different people in shapes and sizes all over the world marry each other. We don't really know anything else about him, if he's a good guy or not, so, It's early to judge.
3 - ONE SCENE is enough to ruin a character for you guys? In an 18-hour season, you are complaining that one scene has destroyed a character simply because you had an idea about her and it's not the same as the director/writers? Way to jump the gun. I'd stick around.
4 - 25 years in a coma? Ben & Sylvia would be all over her trying to get her back to the real world, at the very least. Not to mention potential brain damage, like, severe brain damage. Oh, yeah, the Hornes would also be broke from the hospital bills. Very likely, they would've sold the Great Northern.
5 - Calling Audrey a "diabolic bitch" based on that scene says more about you than about what the character may or may not have become. In the sense that it's mysoginistic as f*ck. We don't have enough to go on and assume those things. Hell, from that scene it's not even clear if she's sane or not!
In my perception it was much more about a woman who is clearly unhappy with her situation, struggling to get out of it as she deals with her seemingly controlling husband.
We don't have enough to assume anything yet, what happened after the accident, etc etc. So calm down and wait for the other episodes, geez. One bad scene doesn't ruin a character.
The one thing we might assume from that scene is that Billy may be the farmer and Chuck may be Richard.
I think whether or not the actor has a genetic or developmental condition, when Lynch uses giants, dwarves, or people who appear maimed or disfigured, these amount to representations of disability. He uses mental illness and non-normative physical appearance to play with the viewer's conscious and unconscious prejudices. Arguably, he does so in a way that capitalizes/exploits perceptions of "weirdness" or "freakishness." But it's hard, for me at least, to not see his casting of Michael J. Anderson as a precedent for Peter Dinklage and others ...
Couldn't agree more on the ambient/latent ableism and misogyny in some posters reactions to Audrey and her interlocutor.
An ageing woman-- particular an ageing actress-- is something many men fear and loathe. Sadly. Lynch, to his credit, IMO, recognizes this and seems to be calling it into question. (While undoing such a critical stance with the French guest's departure... Go figure.)
Ok, I was going to sit this one out, but there are a few things I'd like to say
1 - As someone has pointed out, the actor who plays Charlie doesn't have dwarfism. He may have a genetic condition that affected his growth, but at 5'4" it's safe to assume he is not a disabled person or a little person at all. He's a small guy, that's all.
2 - I cannot stress how much veiled prejudice is in observations like "she can't be married to THAT GUY". She can, in fact, different people in shapes and sizes all over the world marry each other. We don't really know anything else about him, if he's a good guy or not, so, It's early to judge.
3 - ONE SCENE is enough to ruin a character for you guys? In an 18-hour season, you are complaining that one scene has destroyed a character simply because you had an idea about her and it's not the same as the director/writers? Way to jump the gun. I'd stick around.
4 - 25 years in a coma? Ben & Sylvia would be all over her trying to get her back to the real world, at the very least. Not to mention potential brain damage, like, severe brain damage. Oh, yeah, the Hornes would also be broke from the hospital bills. Very likely, they would've sold the Great Northern.
5 - Calling Audrey a "diabolic bitch" based on that scene says more about you than about what the character may or may not have become. In the sense that it's mysoginistic as f*ck. We don't have enough to go on and assume those things. Hell, from that scene it's not even clear if she's sane or not!
In my perception it was much more about a woman who is clearly unhappy with her situation, struggling to get out of it as she deals with her seemingly controlling husband.
We don't have enough to assume anything yet, what happened after the accident, etc etc. So calm down and wait for the other episodes, geez. One bad scene doesn't ruin a character.
The one thing we might assume from that scene is that Billy may be the farmer and Chuck may be Richard.
Everything you just said.
Even though is not quite possible because of the brain damage, I like the idea of her being comatose, while Dale was trapped in the waiting room, lodge, etc. If so, she might have been having interesting dreams... and I do not think that Sylvia or Ben would be on her... because after a certain time she would probably never come back... she could be in house care... who knows? 😀 Even awful for her... It would be a good twist for the character knowing that she wasn't only beautiful and intelligent, but also gifted.
A more logical way to go with the character is a brain damaged Audrey or a married and a little bitchie Audrey.
Ps/ We had a lot more of TP original characters, Audrey did finally appear, we had Albert, Gordon and a peak of our catatonic and cute Dale 😀 Let us be a little grateful of less three minute floor-sweeping scenes.
Combine this with the French guest scene (and other scenes that seem to comment on aging and how it connects to some of our more troubling cultural norms, especially various shades of misogyny), and I think that a more sophisticated commentary, whose absence you lamented in a thread dedicated specifically to that departure scene, actually starts to emerge.
But that's another conversation. I definitely had the thought about Audrey perhaps still being in a coma and the Audrey/Charlie scene being a dream (that might at least partially "hearken a truth," with names changing but real events being represented, albeit in a mixed up, dreamlike way a la Mulholland Drive and so much of Lynch's other work). There are definitely potential problems with that theory, including Ben's statement about Richard not having had a father (as opposed to "parents") and the very notion of a 25-year coma, but I don't think it's so far fetched as to exist outside of the world of Twin Peaks. I wouldn't be super surprised to see a scene in a future episode opening with her in a hospital bed screaming "Charlie!" and waking up (although that's probably too straight for Lynch).
Also love the idea of it being a scene from some TV show or movie that she's in, if only because supposedly the original premise for Mulholland Drive as a Twin Peaks spinoff was Audrey going off to be a Hollywood star. There are also problems with this theory, but they're hardly unresolvable: Charlie calling her by her actual name (this would be far from the first time an actor plays somebody with their same first name, and Lynch has a history of having fun with name and face mixups) and her talking about going to the roadhouse (of which there are many, in both the real world and TV/cinema).
I doubt that either of these theories (or the one about Charlie being a therapist) will pan out in any way shape or form, but it's always fun thinking and talking about it.
Combine this with the French guest scene (and other scenes that seem to comment on aging and how it connects to some of our more troubling cultural norms, especially various shades of misogyny), and I think that a more sophisticated commentary, whose absence you lamented in a thread dedicated specifically to that departure scene, actually starts to emerge.
At the risk of veering off topic... your remark here really got me thinking. I'd certainly like to read the two scenes as a diptych that illuminates the disparity in how our society has traditionally celebrated ageing male lotharios (that is, if their charisma and class status are sufficient-- others are dismissed as "dirty old men") while condeming ageing women.
In Catching the Big Fish, Lynch displayed a real resistance to this kind of hermeneutic work with his films, I'm afraid, so it's certainly hard to know. I certainly wish that we could read in The Return a commentary on his past work that framed some of the liberties he took with stylized misogyny/aestheticized sexual violence in terms of critical self reflection. Oh, if only we could know!
Ok, I was going to sit this one out, but there are a few things I'd like to say
1 - As someone has pointed out, the actor who plays Charlie doesn't have dwarfism. He may have a genetic condition that affected his growth, but at 5'4" it's safe to assume he is not a disabled person or a little person at all. He's a small guy, that's all.
2 - I cannot stress how much veiled prejudice is in observations like "she can't be married to THAT GUY". She can, in fact, different people in shapes and sizes all over the world marry each other. We don't really know anything else about him, if he's a good guy or not, so, It's early to judge.
3 - ONE SCENE is enough to ruin a character for you guys? In an 18-hour season, you are complaining that one scene has destroyed a character simply because you had an idea about her and it's not the same as the director/writers? Way to jump the gun. I'd stick around.
4 - 25 years in a coma? Ben & Sylvia would be all over her trying to get her back to the real world, at the very least. Not to mention potential brain damage, like, severe brain damage. Oh, yeah, the Hornes would also be broke from the hospital bills. Very likely, they would've sold the Great Northern.
5 - Calling Audrey a "diabolic bitch" based on that scene says more about you than about what the character may or may not have become. In the sense that it's mysoginistic as f*ck. We don't have enough to go on and assume those things. Hell, from that scene it's not even clear if she's sane or not!
In my perception it was much more about a woman who is clearly unhappy with her situation, struggling to get out of it as she deals with her seemingly controlling husband.
We don't have enough to assume anything yet, what happened after the accident, etc etc. So calm down and wait for the other episodes, geez. One bad scene doesn't ruin a character.
The one thing we might assume from that scene is that Billy may be the farmer and Chuck may be Richard.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The complainers of these "issues" often say they "trust Lynch". If you trust Lynch, stop complaining and wait until the 18 hour movie is finished before dismissing it. Try looking for context clues and get lost in the mystery.
Also, I highly doubt Lynch is trying to annoy people. He is trusting that the viewer has the capability of intelligence and can provide context to the unique world he is building. Stop proving him wrong.
The misogyny revolving around these Audrey observations reminds of the way Skyler was viewed in Breaking Bad.
The misogyny revolving around these Audrey observations reminds of the way Skyler was viewed in Breaking Bad.
Yes! And Carmela Soprano before her...
It's long been something of an avocation for male viewers of so-called "prestige tv"
The makers of Game of Thrones know this, and IMO capitalize on it with "slut-shaming porn" and "torture porn"... We've now seen lots of lengthy sequences of women forced to march through King's Landing while being called "slut" and "whore" and covered in garbage after having already been brutalized... not to mention the strange way that the Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale kept the brutality but lost the explicit critique of fascist patriarchy in its carefully stylized production and seeming suggestion that it is women who, in fact, have done this to themselves...
it's all grim as f*ck if you ask me.
But, honestly, I wonder if, given this context, The Return may in fact appear to have a critical edge... Woof. Uncritical, stylized representations of rape are all the rage in hollywood in 2017... I guess Lynch figured that out 30 years ago with Blue Velvet... Prescient, perhaps.... more likely just part of the problem.
I'd love to hear someone give an impassioned and thoughtful explanation of why we should perceive Lynch's putative misogny otherwise. I have yet to be persuaded.... It's too easy to succumb to the temptation toward fanboy apologism, something in evidence by fans regardless of gender....
The misogyny revolving around these Audrey observations reminds of the way Skyler was viewed in Breaking Bad.
Yes! And Carmela Soprano before her...
It's long been something of an avocation for male viewers of so-called "prestige tv"
The makers of Game of Thrones know this, and IMO capitalize on it with "slut-shaming porn" and "torture porn"... We've now seen lots of lengthy sequences of women forced to march through King's Landing while being called "slut" and "whore" and covered in garbage after having already been brutalized... not to mention the strange way that the Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale kept the brutality but lost the explicit critique of fascist patriarchy in its carefully stylized production and seeming suggestion that it is women who, in fact, have done this to themselves...
it's all grim as f*ck if you ask me.
But, honestly, I wonder if, given this context, The Return may in fact appear to have a critical edge... Woof. Uncritical, stylized representations of rape are all the rage in hollywood in 2017... I guess Lynch figured that out 30 years ago with Blue Velvet... Prescient, perhaps.... more likely just part of the problem.
I'd love to hear someone give an impassioned and thoughtful explanation of why we should perceive Lynch's putative misogny otherwise. I have yet to be persuaded.... It's too easy to succumb to the temptation toward fanboy apologism, something in evidence by fans regardless of gender....
I hope this doesn't sound confrontational or stupid: What makes a representation of rape in a narrative uncritical? And when is something in film depicted as not stylized? Would Irreversible or I Stand Alone be a good example of not stylized? I ask, because I think it will help me develop a better explanation to Lynch's perceived misogyny.
Anybody else wondered why she threw that fit in the end of the scene when her husband didn't answer her?
I think whoever was on the phone told him something terrible about Audrey that flipped the whole scenario on its head.
Any ideas?
Fire walk with