I don't think it's the pacing of scenes as much as it is the pacing of life in the Twin Peaks world. We've been watching for months. In Twin Peaks only a couple days have passed. For Cole and the gang, less than a week. For Dougie Coop and Mr. C, the same. I don't think anyone expected the season to cover just a couple days in the life of these characters; had we known going in that this would be the case, perhaps it would be easier to accept the fact that four or five episodes cover a single afternoon in TP.
I don't buy the "Lynch doesn't cater to anyone" premise. There is a reason for him being the only popular and consistently acclaimed living surrealist. That reason is that he has built up a brand and a cult following. He has been remarkably faithful to his formula actually. He is no Billy Wilder who could produce several enduring classics in drastically different genres even during the old Hollywood studio system which tied directors' hands in the creative sense.
I would truly believe that Lynch doesn't care about pleasing fans once he puts out some piece of arthouse not distintly Lynchian in style. Now that would TRULY upend expectations. And the constant 4th wall trolling in this show is so tiresome that it suggests a downright obsession with the audience. His instantly recognisable dress and hairstyle suggest keeping up an image (think Lagerfeld with his sunnies). He's an auteur, but also one business-savvy enough to have survived and gained prominence in the Hollywood system. A typical self-absorbed artist can't do that. There might be hordes of other Lynches out there who we've never heard of because they haven't had his luck and professional smarts.
I was a Lynchian latecomer, having been in elementary school when Twin Peaks first aired. So my initial exposure to David Lynch was Mulholland Drive. I saw it in the theater when I was living abroad -- and I HATED it. The Lynch fan who took me laughed all the way home on the metro as I bitched and moaned about a story that was engrossing until like the last such-and-such minutes when it turned into an absolutely confounding, inexplicable mess. I have since learned that the film was the pilot for a TV show, and, when it was rejected, Lynch tacked on an ending that would have otherwise been explored over a season or multiple seasons of television.
I get Lynch now, and I have come to love Mulholland Drive. But I was trolled that night. In the best way, I think, but that movie was meant to challenge my expectations, to throw me for a loop, and whether I liked that or not was my problem. It was not intended to please mainstream audiences so Lynch could remain a Hollywood player.
But even if you think of Mulholland Drive differently, or any of his other non-Twin Peaks projects (Eraserhead, whether you love it or hate it, is painful to watch -- by design), we're really talking just about Twin Peaks here. And here are the facts:
-- Lynch never intended to reveal Laura's killer. This is what audiences wanted, and were expecting. In fact, whether you blame the script itself or just the marketing, many felt it was promised to them. ABC sure thought so, and forced him into it.
-- Once he revealed the killer, he hopped ship. The show descended into chaos that even the most diehard fans will tell you you can skip right past to the Season 2 finale and be OK.
-- When he did return, it was to produce one of the greatest hours of television ever, if not the greatest. But it ends on a cliffhanger that lasted 25 years -- and we only know that in hindsight. At the time, that was it. Even if they had intended a Season 3, it doesn't matter, because a) It didn't happen and b) ...
-- ... When Lynch returned to the world of Twin Peaks in a film, he didn't resolve the ending, because Fire Walk With Me was a PREQUEL. Booed at Cannes, the film was loathed at the time and, to this day, is divisive even among many fans. But again, love it or loathe it, it purposely did not resolve the abrupt ending of the TV show. Why? Because David Lynch.
It takes guts -- and a little bit of the devil -- to do what he does. That is who he is, and why I love his work. I love Game of Thrones, too, but if the show cut to black for a quarter century right before the final battle with the white walkers, the world would fucking explode. If Lynch was signed on to direct the finale, it wouldn't surprise me. But ANYONE ELSE? Not a chance in hell.
So my original point stands -- if you're watching Twin Peaks hoping for a tidy resolution or anything else you expect to happen and are abandoning ship because you haven't gotten it yet, you haven't been paying attention (and when I say "you," I don't mean you personally, just again referring to some of the comments I've seen on this board). David Lynch, with Mark Frost as his partner in crime on this one, is a troll. Arguably the best, most brilliant troll ever. Which, again, doesn't mean you have to think everything he touches turns to gold. But if you're waiting for him to hand you what you think you want on a silver platter, you might consider flipping over to HBO and watching dragons turn Lannisters into dust. That's a great show, too, but it's not Twin Peaks.
I don't think it's the pacing of scenes as much as it is the pacing of life in the Twin Peaks world. We've been watching for months. In Twin Peaks only a couple days have passed. For Cole and the gang, less than a week. For Dougie Coop and Mr. C, the same. I don't think anyone expected the season to cover just a couple days in the life of these characters; had we known going in that this would be the case, perhaps it would be easier to accept the fact that four or five episodes cover a single afternoon in TP.
Your doppelganger?
I don't buy the "Lynch doesn't cater to anyone" premise. There is a reason for him being the only popular and consistently acclaimed living surrealist. That reason is that he has built up a brand and a cult following. He has been remarkably faithful to his formula actually. He is no Billy Wilder who could produce several enduring classics in drastically different genres even during the old Hollywood studio system which tied directors' hands in the creative sense.
I would truly believe that Lynch doesn't care about pleasing fans once he puts out some piece of arthouse not distintly Lynchian in style. Now that would TRULY upend expectations. And the constant 4th wall trolling in this show is so tiresome that it suggests a downright obsession with the audience. His instantly recognisable dress and hairstyle suggest keeping up an image (think Lagerfeld with his sunnies). He's an auteur, but also one business-savvy enough to have survived and gained prominence in the Hollywood system. A typical self-absorbed artist can't do that. There might be hordes of other Lynches out there who we've never heard of because they haven't had his luck and professional smarts.
Yes, there are indeed hordes of artists lacking Lynch's savvy and luck-- an outcome that, to a greater or lesser extent, is a function of a commitment, on the part of these artists, to disinterested production/ creative autonomy. Their sacrifice of unremunerated creative labor isn't made any more or less meaningful or tragic, IMO if David Lynch thrives on his signature style (what contemporary artist is NOT similarly 'typecast?' When I hear 'Jeff Koons,' I think of balloon animals and vacuum cleaners...)
Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... Surely if more people spent more time watching more 'content' more like David Lynch's, 'content distributors' would be more inclined to provide more artistically ambitious 'content,' no?
Surrealism may be anachronistic, but Lynch's porting it over to mass mediated entertainment remains the limit case of American 'tv' and wide-release cinema in terms of artistic, psychological/intellectual ambition... what else even comes close??
From what you've said, it strikes me we might agree on the practical value for the art-inclined of having a David Lynch doing work for Showtime...
re: fourth-wall breaking, surely the 'third wall' is not an institutionalized convention worth preserving... If google queries for 'distantiation effect' see a temporary boost, that's a net positive, IMO
Glad you're back Badalamenti Fan. Missed your scathing crtiques and analysis!
Glad you're back Badalamenti Fan. Missed your scathing crtiques and analysis!
HA! Than you, sir. I needed a "timeout" after my post-Part 12 meltdown!
oops, my last remark didn't make much sense, too late to edit. Substitute "three walls" (i.e., illusionist theater) for "third wall"
Oh, please, not the "go watch GoT" card. You can't pay me to watch that crap. I think it is trashy, pulpy, gruesome porn with medieval sets. My idea of a great show is the super, super slow Rectify which also delivered radically different story-telling and never held your hand. I have also liked European arthouse films that are more out there and slower than Lynch's work. And I love Mulholland Dr. truly and deeply. My favourite detective show is the Danish The Killing, which took 20 very languorous hours to resolve the whodunit.
Like you said - once you see Lynch once, you know what to expect. His style is consistent to the point of being cliched after enough exposure. I haven't seen The Straight Story - that might be different. Whether he sticks to his style deliberately or it's just the only style he's gifted in, this consistency has gained him a popular following no other current auteur has replicated. It is definitely a brand regardless of intention.
"It takes guts -- and a little bit of the devil -- to do what he does"
It would take even more guts to really deviate from what people expect from him. Such as add intellectual depth to all that artistic style. Make something deeply earnest instead of ironic winking and nodding and satire. Make the picture so realistic that you feel like you're really there (Danish royal drama with Alicia Vikander a few years back). Top Sokurov and do an even longer take than the unbroken 90 min. in that tour of the Hermitage in 2002. Make something as bubbly and cutesy as Amelie.
The options for doing something new and not stereotypically Lynchian are limitless and he has the talent for it. Give me 1 thing in The Return that you haven't seen Lynch do before. Then tell me again how he doesn't deliver to expectations.
"It takes guts -- and a little bit of the devil -- to do what he does"
It would take even more guts to really deviate from what people expect from him. Such as add intellectual depth to all that artistic style. Make something deeply earnest instead of ironic winking and nodding and satire. Make the picture so realistic that you feel like you're really there (Danish royal drama with Alicia Vikander a few years back). Top Sokurov and do an even longer take than the unbroken 90 min. in that tour of the Hermitage in 2002. Make something as bubbly and cutesy as Amelie.
The options for doing something new and not stereotypically Lynchian are limitless and he has the talent for it. Give me 1 thing in The Return that you haven't seen Lynch do before. Then tell me again how he doesn't deliver to expectations.
Interesting and thoughtful criticisms, Llama Fan. I think Lynch's irony always comes with a heavy portion of earnestness, his surrealism a tool made meaningful by its balance with realism that together serve an admittedly cryptic sort of social commentary...
Reading Lynch as a maker of "moving paintings," as he seems to perceive himself, seems to me to call into question the criterion of "versatility..." So many male painters/sculptors of Lynch's generation have singular characteristic styles (e.g., Kenneth Noland, Chuck Close, etc.) not a fluency across a variety of styles or media ....
I'll have to check out the other films/tv series you recommended (I enjoyed the "long shot" of Russian Ark-- but I'd argue Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire are similarly formally inventive...) In fact, given you enjoyed Mulholland Drive, I'm surprised you don't care for The Return.... it strikes me as an intensification of the "happy accident" of a TV pilot turned feature film....
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Good of you to speak out about your struggle, Kdawg.
Fire walk with