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.
no worries, definitely not confrontational or stupid. In fact, I've come to be grateful when discussions of sometimes polarizing topics are met with questions... (see my recent rants elsewhere on the forum about the armchair quarterbacks who would like to do Lynch's editing for him...)
Ok, so I'd put it this way: the locus classicus of what I term an "uncritical rape scene" is the eroticized rape/battery/S&M scene in Blue Velvet. Much ink has been spilled analyzing it, but the gist of my take on it, for what it's worth, is that the likely male viewer is more readily conditioned to recognize the "sexy" in it than reach the higher-order, self-reflexive question the scene seems to invite: Am I complicit in the brutalization and exploitation of Isabella Rosselini's character (and, as Roger Ebert had it, Isabella Rosellini herself) if I am titilated by the ambiguity between villain Frank's ritualized battery and rape and Kyle Machlaclan's character's "compassionately" serial violation/satisfaction of Rosellini ???
(sorry it's been a while and the actual characters name aren't coming to mind...)
I have not seen the Gaspar Noe films you mention, but I would frame it this way: if a rape is depicted realistically, it is more likely critical. If the camera lingers gratuitously or the balance of victim-assailant is portrayed ambiguously, it is what I'd term uncritical... Obviously, however, this a matter of interpretation, although I think women critics should have the last word... much as I feel victims who allege sexual assault should be believed first and blamed never.
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?
I have no idea, but I find the concept that an idea can completely flip something on its head and forever transform scenes we've already watched, once that knowledge is gained.
As an example (and I'm not suggesting this happens), imagine if we discovered that Coop, as Dougie, is acting how he is not because he is struggling to find his old identity again and re adjust to life in our world, but because Cooper is going through a form of emotional breakdown caused by his experiences. He's shut himself down and doesn't want to come back. Re-watching all previous scenes would therefore add far more sadness to those scenes than some of the light hearted scenes we've warmed over.
A bit of a tangent sorry, but I do think lynch and frost might try and throw a plot development out there which makes watching the series from the start a completely different experience on second viewing.
A bit like what Nolan did with the film Memento. The second viewing is never the same. Nor for that matter is The Usual Suspects.
But back to your post - I also got the impression that he had learnt of something that Audrey has done. Either that, or the news is so dire he's deliberating whether to actually tell Audrey because he does actually have some love and respect for her.
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?
I have no idea, but I find the concept that an idea can completely flip something on its head and forever transform scenes we've already watched, once that knowledge is gained.
As an example (and I'm not suggesting this happens), imagine if we discovered that Coop, as Dougie, is acting how he is not because he is struggling to find his old identity again and re adjust to life in our world, but because Cooper is going through a form of emotional breakdown caused by his experiences. He's shut himself down and doesn't want to come back. Re-watching all previous scenes would therefore add far more sadness to those scenes than some of the light hearted scenes we've warmed over.
A bit of a tangent sorry, but I do think lynch and frost might try and throw a plot development out there which makes watching the series from the start a completely different experience on second viewing.
A bit like what Nolan did with the film Memento. The second viewing is never the same. Nor for that matter is The Usual Suspects.
But back to your post - I also got the impression that he had learnt of something that Audrey has done. Either that, or the news is so dire he's deliberating whether to actually tell Audrey because he does actually have some love and respect for her.
I don't anticipate Frost and Lynch employing an "a-ha!" formal device like Memento or The Usual Suspects. More likely, I suspect, is that there is some sort of unconventional formal structure one can posit to be at work here but it is a veiled or ambiguous one akin to the Mobius-strip designs of of Mulholland Drive or Lost Highway. (Or Inland Empire... )
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.
This isn't an evolution though, it's a totally different character. Tolstoy set the standard for character evolution in his celebrated Annex to War and Peace where Natasha in particular has grown older, lost her youthful joie de vivre, but is somehow still the same Natasha. Twin Peaks: The Return gives us an anti-Audrey.
This isn't an evolution though, it's a totally different character. Tolstoy set the standard for character evolution in his celebrated Annex to War and Peace where Natasha in particular has grown older, lost her youthful joie de vivre, but is somehow still the same Natasha. Twin Peaks: The Return gives us an anti-Audrey.
People change a lot. I've seen people in real life descend from a happy carefree individual to a drastic, dark, troubled soul. And visa versa, thankfully.
I'm not so certain we can all say with confidence that the scene has completely summed up her character either. She's having an argument with her "husband". If the scene went on any longer, it could have easily led to her walking into an adjacent room, sitting down and looking forlorn, perhaps staring whimsically at an old photo of Dale Cooper, which I think many viewers here were hoping to see. The two scenes would be in contrast to one another but not completely unrelated. Two sides of the person.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - it was five minutes of screen time. There's time left to develop Audrey's character, if indeed it's even relevant to the story this series.
Edit - anti-Audrey. That's a good label. I like it 🙂
Ok, so I'd put it this way: the locus classicus of what I term an "uncritical rape scene" is the eroticized rape/battery/S&M scene in Blue Velvet. Much ink has been spilled analyzing it, but the gist of my take on it, for what it's worth, is that the likely male viewer is more readily conditioned to recognize the "sexy" in it than reach the higher-order, self-reflexive question the scene seems to invite: Am I complicit in the brutalization and exploitation of Isabella Rosselini's character (and, as Roger Ebert had it, Isabella Rosellini herself) if I am titilated by the ambiguity between villain Frank's ritualized battery and rape and Kyle Machlaclan's character's "compassionately" serial violation/satisfaction of Rosellini ???
(sorry it's been a while and the actual characters name aren't coming to mind...)
I have not seen the Gaspar Noe films you mention, but I would frame it this way: if a rape is depicted realistically, it is more likely critical. If the camera lingers gratuitously or the balance of victim-assailant is portrayed ambiguously, it is what I'd term uncritical... Obviously, however, this a matter of interpretation, although I think women critics should have the last word... much as I feel victims who allege sexual assault should be believed first and blamed never.
I am definitely onboard with your answers! I also share your frustration with the armchair quarterbacks! Haha. Rather than go into specific scenes in Twin Peaks and Twin Peaks the Return, I think one of the significant aspects that draws viewers into the world of Twin Peaks is how seriously it explores violence and all of the reverberating echoes of harm it inflicts on a community. Violence is never just a mere a tool to move the plot forward, but is the focal point and cause of the darkness that inhabits its victims and victimizers. There have been a few exceptions with certain scenes, but overall, that is how I feel when watching Twin Peaks and one of the reasons I continue to be captivated.
Another important aspect that continues to humanize the show, is its capacity for forgiveness and redemption within the characters of Twin Peaks and it's respect for age.
Ok, so I'd put it this way: the locus classicus of what I term an "uncritical rape scene" is the eroticized rape/battery/S&M scene in Blue Velvet. Much ink has been spilled analyzing it, but the gist of my take on it, for what it's worth, is that the likely male viewer is more readily conditioned to recognize the "sexy" in it than reach the higher-order, self-reflexive question the scene seems to invite: Am I complicit in the brutalization and exploitation of Isabella Rosselini's character (and, as Roger Ebert had it, Isabella Rosellini herself) if I am titilated by the ambiguity between villain Frank's ritualized battery and rape and Kyle Machlaclan's character's "compassionately" serial violation/satisfaction of Rosellini ???
(sorry it's been a while and the actual characters name aren't coming to mind...)
I have not seen the Gaspar Noe films you mention, but I would frame it this way: if a rape is depicted realistically, it is more likely critical. If the camera lingers gratuitously or the balance of victim-assailant is portrayed ambiguously, it is what I'd term uncritical... Obviously, however, this a matter of interpretation, although I think women critics should have the last word... much as I feel victims who allege sexual assault should be believed first and blamed never.
I am definitely onboard with your answers! I also share your frustration with the armchair quarterbacks! Haha. Rather than go into specific scenes in Twin Peaks and Twin Peaks the Return, I think one of the significant aspects that draws viewers into the world of Twin Peaks is how seriously it explores violence and all of the reverberating echoes of harm it inflicts on a community. Violence is never just a mere a tool to move the plot forward, but is the focal point and cause of the darkness that inhabits its victims and victimizers. There have been a few exceptions with certain scenes, but overall, that is how I feel when watching Twin Peaks and one of the reasons I continue to be captivated.
Another important aspect that continues to humanize the show, is its capacity for forgiveness and redemption within the characters of Twin Peaks and it's respect for age.
Agreed !
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.
no worries, definitely not confrontational or stupid. In fact, I've come to be grateful when discussions of sometimes polarizing topics are met with questions... (see my recent rants elsewhere on the forum about the armchair quarterbacks who would like to do Lynch's editing for him...)
Ok, so I'd put it this way: the locus classicus of what I term an "uncritical rape scene" is the eroticized rape/battery/S&M scene in Blue Velvet. Much ink has been spilled analyzing it, but the gist of my take on it, for what it's worth, is that the likely male viewer is more readily conditioned to recognize the "sexy" in it than reach the higher-order, self-reflexive question the scene seems to invite: Am I complicit in the brutalization and exploitation of Isabella Rosselini's character (and, as Roger Ebert had it, Isabella Rosellini herself) if I am titilated by the ambiguity between villain Frank's ritualized battery and rape and Kyle Machlaclan's character's "compassionately" serial violation/satisfaction of Rosellini ???
(sorry it's been a while and the actual characters name aren't coming to mind...)
I have not seen the Gaspar Noe films you mention, but I would frame it this way: if a rape is depicted realistically, it is more likely critical. If the camera lingers gratuitously or the balance of victim-assailant is portrayed ambiguously, it is what I'd term uncritical... Obviously, however, this a matter of interpretation, although I think women critics should have the last word... much as I feel victims who allege sexual assault should be believed first and blamed never.
I agree with your analysis of what that scene brings up to some viewers, i think that's true. But i don't agree with your hidden suggestion that a Storyteller/filmaker should always tell the story based on what the audience will get. I think as an artist you just keep Faith that most of the audience Will get what you want to tell, because it's impossible and destructive to look for a 'way in' for every target. I think rape is atrocious and I think it is, in part and in some cases, also because of the ambiguity it can bring: you are hurt where the centre of your pleasure is. Do you think an autenthic And deep reflexive question is possible if you delete the raper sexual point of view from a rape scene? That sexy element you see is the Frank part of that story, for me.
This is a very complex subject and I am sure i wasn't able to express myself very well in this post. In a few words I want To say that it's useless for me to restrict an artistical research about such a complex matter only to a moral statement (like a newspaper or An essay).
As an example (and I'm not suggesting this happens), imagine if we discovered that Coop, as Dougie, is acting how he is not because he is struggling to find his old identity again and re adjust to life in our world, but because Cooper is going through a form of emotional breakdown caused by his experiences. He's shut himself down and doesn't want to come back. Re-watching all previous scenes would therefore add far more sadness to those scenes than some of the light hearted scenes we've warmed over.
While I don't think that's the case, I do think it'd perhaps be more merciful for Cooper to remain an innocent than to regain his marbles.
Consider what he'll have to process when he learns what his doppelganger has done to the world in general and specifically to the people Cooper cares about...all because of his failure in the BL.
That's fairly horrific stuff.
"- 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 misogynistic as f*ck. We don't have enough to go on and assume those things."
YES.
"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. "
Yep. That's life.
Wow, as someone pointed out: Maybe Richard is Donna's son! A number of introduced bits at the end of Season 2 (like the shaking left arms) have come back into play. Maybe this is offering a point to that otherwise pointless Donna story line.
In any case, it seems to me Audrey is not just in some loveless marriage. She was either dreaming that, in a psych ward, or made a contract because she had to be married for some manner of protection. The way Charlie acted though thoroughly suggested dream, because he resembled Audrey's father--behind a desk, with so much paperwork--and cuz Lynch uses little people and a giant as Dream characters.
If Richard were Donna's son, I guess he wouldn't have Mr. C's Y chromosome though. Hmm.
Anyway, Audrey impatiently yelling "you won't tell me" was parodying us the viewers, and it was my favorite bit of the scene.
Fire walk with