So should very film, play, musical and television show now be required to have quotas based upon US demography -- would this be the ultimate in political correctness or turn every artistic endeavor into a cast of millions? You could never have a one man play (or woman, or trans or non-conforming identity) again.
You would have to have a representative of each race, sexual identity per race, religion per race, religion + sexual identity per race, every single age (a baby has to play a sheriff or it's anti-infant), then what about economic status -- where does it end - you cannot represent every single permutation and combination that exists -- nothing would ever get done.
Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
Issues of race/ethnicity and representation are also not new for Lynch. Dorothy Valens
What has Dorothy Valens (Isabella Rossellini) to do with "race issues"? She looks pretty white to me: (central) Italian, German and Swedish origins. No one here in Italy would consider her other than a white woman, just like Sherilyn Fenn and Lara Flynn Boyle. Anyway this "ethnic" issue must be something very yrev 😉 American since here an Italian is not considered anything else than a "white person", though, of course we're (like all humans) of mixed ancestry. And yes, racism and all race issues are definitely BS.
Interesting question/observation, Kyle Anderson. Although they are all often taken to be natural and self-evident, race and ethnicity are neither. I appreciate your pointing out as much by contrasting how Dorothy was/would have been perceived in Italy with how American scholars and critics have interpreted her (presuming a "mainstream" or native English-speaking, presumably "white" viewer...)
You might be interested to know that many U.S. historians (notably, Noel Ignatiev) have argued that poor, Italian- and Irish-American immigrants were racialized as "non-white" by more established, city-dwelling populations of the late 19th-c. (ahem...e.g., the English and their ancestors)
In the twentieth century, actresses with both European and non-European "foreign" accents were frequently cast to add "exotic" intrigue sex appeal to their roles... Such characters/actresses are, for instance, ubiquitous in the "femme fatale" role of detective noir,... which is what, I think, Lynch was evoking with the character of Dorothy Valens.
So, yes, I think one can recognize Dorothy and Josie share more than a little in common in terms of how their accents contribute to their perceived sex appeal and "danger."
"You might be interested to know that many U.S. historians (notably, Noel Ignatiev) have argued that poor, Italian- and Irish-American immigrants were racialized as "non-white" by more established, city-dwelling immigrant populations of the late 19th-c. (ahem...e.g., the English and their ancestors)"
I ignorantly brought this up to a fellow Afro-American student in one of my seminars, as she was telling me that white female scholars should not be allowed to theorize on Afro-American literature. I was angry about her comment. And she half-shouted, "But we are always the comparison!" I didn't realize until years later how deaf I was to her correct assessment. I apologized profusely years later.
Thanks for this anecdote, Shrrk. To clarify, I certainly wasn't endorsing uncritical adoption of Ignatiev's argument (as I understand it, of course). Rather, I thought it might be pertinent to a conversation I sensed was moving toward a consensus that constructions of race are contingent on cultural and historical contexts...
And yes, racism and all race issues are definitely BS.
I no longer feel safe or welcome in this space.
You say something interesting and intelligent and then ruin it with statements like this. Why do you think you have the right to assert that?
Yes, it probably is "an American thing" at the moment.
I don't wish to speak for Kyle Anderson, but I do wish to clarify that I took what he meant by "bs" to be "socially constructed..." I can see plainly, however, why this could read like an outright dismissal...
I expect we would all agree that "racism and race issues" are not unique to a given contemporary society, U.S. or otherwise.
So should very film, play, musical and television show now be required to have quotas based upon US demography -- would this be the ultimate in political correctness or turn every artistic endeavor into a cast of millions? You could never have a one man play (or woman, or trans or non-conforming identity) again.
You would have to have a representative of each race, sexual identity per race, religion per race, religion + sexual identity per race, every single age (a baby has to play a sheriff or it's anti-infant), then what about economic status -- where does it end - you cannot represent every single permutation and combination that exists -- nothing would ever get done.
No. Of course not.
But we do have the right to talk about it, and to look at it from the cultural perspective. We surely have the right to analyze Twin Peaks' place in pop culture from any framework or perspective that it fits into.
And yes, racism and all race issues are definitely BS.
I no longer feel safe or welcome in this space.
You say something interesting and intelligent and then ruin it with statements like this. Why do you think you have the right to assert that?
Yes, it probably is "an American thing" at the moment.
I don't wish to speak for Kyle Anderson, but I do wish to clarify that I took what he meant by "bs" to be "socially constructed..." I can see plainly, however, why this could read like an outright dismissal...
I expect we would all agree that "racism and race issues" are not unique to a given contemporary society, U.S. or otherwise.
OK, I'll accept that. I read it as an outright dismissal of something that is a very real part of our lives.
"OK, I'll accept that. I read it as an outright dismissal of something that is a very real part of our lives."
I absolutely did not wish to suggest otherwise. I think it's perhaps the most interesting and important facet of The Return to discuss, in fact!
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
I have spent the majority of my life in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle and northwest Washington state).
I can tell you that this region is still VERY segregated (mostly due to cost of living/housing in the various neighborhoods VS. wage compensation for various types of work).
Even just visiting public schools around the Seattle area and seeing the disparity of opportunities, equipment, etc. gives an eye-opening view as to how huge the inequality is around here.
In that sense, the diversity/lack of diversity in the town of Twin Peaks in the first two seasons, and in the Pacific Northwest sections of the third season, are not farfetched at all. Especially in the smaller towns.
Shoehorning in various nationalities with the sole goal of being more diverse always comes across to me as a shallow ploy to give lip service to the concept of diversity. Filling your 'minority quota' to gain public approval comes across as being a somewhat racist concept to me. "See, we have 35 minority actors in our show. We're diverse!"
As far as feminism in Twin Peaks, terrible things have happened to both men and women on the show. Both men and women have been portrayed as heroes, villains and entities. About the only disparity I can point my finger at is that women tend to be more sexually objectified than men...but that's really nothing new.
About the only disparity I can point my finger at is that women tend to be more sexually objectified than men...but that's really nothing new.
Because I'm excited about the finale, I've been watching some David Lynch interviews this week. Two were from the Charlie Rose show on PBS (one from 1997, the other from 2000). And then another was from March 2015, in front of a live audience in Australia. That was about an hour long, and at one point, Lynch says, "I like naked women."
Made me (and the audience) chuckle.
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
Respectfully, I think we're discussing two different things. Nobody here made the claim your reply refuted. What 's up for discussion , if I understood everyone correctly, is the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly "reinscribes" some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there.
OP, et al., please correct me if I've misrepresented what's under discussion...
Stated otherwise: "Can two white male artists convincingly say what (it seems) they have set out to 'say' about stereotypes/structural violence/inequality with respect to gender and race via artistic conventions that rely on representations of stereotypes, structural violence, etc.." thoughts?
EDIT: in other words, it's not about verisimilitude or realism with respect to geographic or demographic diversity, per se. Rather: if (and this is a big "if") their goal is to say something critical about X, does it work to use X to this end?"
I think this is a valid concern that's been articulated elsewhere and has shaped how I watched this season. Calling this concern "PC" or "SJW" (eyeroll) is a way of dismissing something that's kind of hard to miss, especially when you look at his other projects.
Lynch has himself spoken of his leaving a bucolic Northwest childhood to go to Philadelphia in the late 1960s, a time of intense turmoil in the city, and has said that Eraserhead voices the sense of despair and alienation that he felt back then.
I don't really think much of the demographic argument - an artist who flouts realistic conventions in every other way surely could make the universe whatever way he wants it to be, and put actors of whatever color into the different roles. (I mean, we are literally arguing here about whether or not Diane and Naido are the same person despite the fact that they look nothing alike. This is not "realism," people!)
I find it easier to accept that as a very isolated, interior-focused artist, Lynch's vision is really about taking apart and rearranging the myths of the traditional nuclear family. In some ways, the show has a devastating critique of masculinity and violence. In others, it holds up a notion of "decency" even at the same time that it shows how little valued that notion really is in our society.
If Lynch has shown us anything this season, I think, it's that this show represents his "dream-logic," and you can go along with it, or not. His work is meant to provoke debate in exactly this way. And it doesn't lend itself to easy answers.
This is a beautiful reflection and is exactly what I was looking for when staging my initial question/concern. Thank you.
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
Respectfully, I think we're discussing two different things. Nobody here made the claim your reply refuted. What 's up for discussion , if I understood everyone correctly, is the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly "reinscribes" some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there.
OP, et al., please correct me if I've misrepresented what's under discussion...
Stated otherwise: "Can two white male artists convincingly say what (it seems) they have set out to 'say' about stereotypes/structural violence/inequality with respect to gender and race via artistic conventions that rely on representations of stereotypes, structural violence, etc.." thoughts?
EDIT: in other words, it's not about verisimilitude or realism with respect to geographic or demographic diversity, per se. Rather: if (and this is a big "if") their goal is to say something critical about X, does it work to use X to this end?"
"the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly 'reinscribes' some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there."
See, that's fascinating. My original post did not reflect that angle, and it's allowed me see things from a different angle/lens. That's fruitful
If someone has not lived an experience, does that mean they can never write about it? Goodbye sci-fi and fantasy as it is all made up.
Respectfully, I think we're discussing two different things. Nobody here made the claim your reply refuted. What 's up for discussion , if I understood everyone correctly, is the would-be paradox of a text of social criticism/commentary that quite spectacularly "reinscribes" some of the structural/social inequalities it otherwise critiques.... pardon the jargony sentence there.
OP, et al., please correct me if I've misrepresented what's under discussion...
Stated otherwise: "Can two white male artists convincingly say what (it seems) they have set out to 'say' about stereotypes/structural violence/inequality with respect to gender and race via artistic conventions that rely on representations of stereotypes, structural violence, etc.." thoughts?
EDIT: in other words, it's not about verisimilitude or realism with respect to geographic or demographic diversity, per se. Rather: if (and this is a big "if") their goal is to say something critical about X, does it work to use X to this end?"
This question was indeed raised in one of the earlier posts in this thread
My bad-- I misunderstood. Perhaps you can you point back to it with the "quote" function?
My elaborate effort in reply to your posts aimed to paraphrase what I understood to be some of the possible contradictions or complications posed by the OP.
Fire walk with