1. A story that ends with "it was all a dream" is bad.
2. David Lynch doesn't make bad stories.
3. Therefore, Twin Peaks cannot end with "it was all a dream."
Does that about sum it up? 😉
- /< /\ /> -
Question: "Syllogism or Circular Reasoning or Both?"
Answer: "Yes."
Replace "bad" with "cliche(d)" and "cannot" with "should not" and you're onto, a not as hyperbole(ic), something! But yes, I've seen this syllogism, not in the form of a syllogism, several times.
1. A story that ends with "it was all a dream" is bad.
2. David Lynch doesn't make bad stories.
3. Therefore, Twin Peaks cannot end with "it was all a dream."
Does that about sum it up? 😉
- /< /\ /> -
EDIT: the conversation around the table is lively here
Ric, I think I follow the gist of your analysis. This all reminds me of the discussion we were having about the controversy over Lost as a precedent (my apologies here for letting that conversation wither...there's simply been too much to keep up with here!)
I should add, I appreciate the humor your post offers right now, in a moment that seems (from my vantage) like it might be that of peak collective anguish/anxiety about The Return.
If I read you right, I think your syllogism might put you in a similar camp as the one I'm in... when I express how/why I'm still not clear what the fuss/stink is about elsewhere on the forum. I don't intend to hijack your thread, but i wonder if the following thoughts are pertinent here:
Folks might be making too much out of the "dream" debate/hypothesis/explanation.
Consider:
Mulholland Drive begins with the camera falling into a pillow, a first-person depiction of preparing for sleep. Neither this scene, nor its function as a prologue to the film, necessarily constrains the ensuing narrative-- it merely invites us to suspend disbelief.
In The Return, we get an epilogue that prompts us in a similar direction. Arguably, its function is to retroactively frame the complete narrative, and, in this respect, it likewise doesn't necessarily need to impinge on how we experience/experienced the rest of the "film." [The second volume of Goethe's Faust comes to mind here...]
I anticipate the "dream vs. not a dream" debates will subside once viewers realize that, regardless of Lynch's fave disorientation device, we can still view his films with pleasure and fascination. After all, realism is but one narrative strategy.
The Return, IMO, is richer, more interesting, and more rewarding on account of how it employs a variety of narrative strategies/tricks to disorient the viewer, to denature the medium, and to subvert audience expectations.
I'm hopeful folks here will gradually let go of the "what happened vs. what didn't happen?" debates -- IMO, these have the effect of limiting the scope and scale of aesthetic possibility in the The Return to mimesis, to what's familiar/comfortable...
Only then, IMO, might our discussions tackle what I (humbly, respectful of others differences, etc.) find to be more fascinating questions, e.g., how fair/accurate/deserved are hagiographic appraisals of Lynch's career? What does the "new topicality" evident in The Return tell us about Lynch's perspective on the world today? What about this perspective is outmoded and what other artists, texts, etc. should be recognized as pioneering new directions-- is there a "Lynch tradition?" Did Lynch forsake his characteristic earnestness in The Return ? Is this newly distanced position cynical or purposeful? If the latter, to what end? And, more important, does it succeed?
Thanks, in advance, for accommodating a greedily off-topic reply.... I'm eager to hear yours and others thoughts about all this, if any. Happy to start a new thread for this purpose, where frustration with "how the show fulfilled/failed to satisfy expectations" could shade over to more ... thoughtful(?).... critique/discussion....
1. A story that ends with "it was all a dream" is bad.
2. David Lynch doesn't make bad stories.
3. Therefore, Twin Peaks cannot end with "it was all a dream."
Does that about sum it up? 😉
- /< /\ /> -
This I can live with.
This is a very well-thought-out post that deserves a better response from someone... but due to lack of time and mental focus, I just want to pick up on one point.I think you're asking people to examine the show as art. And of course when you think about art, it's important to consider your emotional response to it - but with some detachment. You can't really do that when the emotions are still coursing through you.The reason emotions are running so high is simply this: people care like hell about Cooper. David Lynch is an artist who's created many daring and insightful things in The Return - but the vehicle for bringing us into that world is this character that people don't relate to as an artistic creation but as a human, an old friend.That's why it's hard - at this point - to get past the question of "what happened vs. what didn't happen." People really, really care what happened to Cooper, and if he's stranded in some hellscape, it's hard to get past the immediate despair to examine the artistic merits of the hellscape.I guess it's a catch-22: Twin Peaks wouldn't be a such a fully realized work of art if it hadn't breathed life into a Cooper that people love so much. But right now it's the love of Cooper that's holding people back from fully appreciating the art.Anyway, I think it'll take time, which is what you said. People will find their answers to what became of Cooper (through analysis, wishful thinking, or some combo). Some will rewatch a few months from now, when the whole thing is less raw, in a better frame of mind to appreciate the finer points. It happened with the original devastating "ending," and it'll happen this time too.
Thanks, in kind, for your thoughtful response, Sonia! My partner provided me a similarly perceptive perspective, via the reminder that, no matter what fascination I find in David Lynch or his work, I should recognize that his newly antagonistic relationship with the Twin Peaks fan community has the effect of feeding the auteur illusion/ideology/myth.... Indeed, she felt Part 18 betrayed an outright contempt for fan culture (e.g., by denying fans an Audrey explanation and, likewise, by returning Dale Cooper to a fate outside of the world he once inhabited...) that she found utterly offensive/reprehensible. Biting the hand that feeds you etc.
Your message reminds me that we are both (my partner and I) interacting with The Return with more distance than that of the heartfelt dedication of fans, both on this forum and more broadly. I've perhaps been unfair to this fan community... I don't mean to be sanctimonious or elitist. I'm just hungry/eager to engage with The Return , now that it's all done, from a wider variety of angles/approaches/frames. Good heavens-- there's just so much more to discuss!
Again, Ric, afraid I owe you an apology for pulling your topic in a new direction.
All I can say: Sometimes my arms bend back!
This is a very well-thought-out post that deserves a better response from someone... but due to lack of time and mental focus, I just want to pick up on one point.I think you're asking people to examine the show as art. And of course when you think about art, it's important to consider your emotional response to it - but with some detachment. You can't really do that when the emotions are still coursing through you.The reason emotions are running so high is simply this: people care like hell about Cooper. David Lynch is an artist who's created many daring and insightful things in The Return - but the vehicle for bringing us into that world is this character that people don't relate to as an artistic creation but as a human, an old friend.That's why it's hard - at this point - to get past the question of "what happened vs. what didn't happen." People really, really care what happened to Cooper, and if he's stranded in some hellscape, it's hard to get past the immediate despair to examine the artistic merits of the hellscape.I guess it's a catch-22: Twin Peaks wouldn't be a such a fully realized work of art if it hadn't breathed life into a Cooper that people love so much. But right now it's the love of Cooper that's holding people back from fully appreciating the art.Anyway, I think it'll take time, which is what you said. People will find their answers to what became of Cooper (through analysis, wishful thinking, or some combo). Some will rewatch a few months from now, when the whole thing is less raw, in a better frame of mind to appreciate the finer points. It happened with the original devastating "ending," and it'll happen this time too.
Very nicely put. However I have a conundrum. I actually care less about what happened to Cooper and am more pissed off (not gonna say nicely) about what happened to ALL the others. Sure the center of the old show and of course the new are Cooper, in one form or another. But so many stories and so many players. All for naught?
What's interesting is I can read your post and insert the entire cast as as whole into each place you mentioned Cooper.
This is a very well-thought-out post that deserves a better response from someone... but due to lack of time and mental focus, I just want to pick up on one point.I think you're asking people to examine the show as art. And of course when you think about art, it's important to consider your emotional response to it - but with some detachment. You can't really do that when the emotions are still coursing through you.The reason emotions are running so high is simply this: people care like hell about Cooper. David Lynch is an artist who's created many daring and insightful things in The Return - but the vehicle for bringing us into that world is this character that people don't relate to as an artistic creation but as a human, an old friend.That's why it's hard - at this point - to get past the question of "what happened vs. what didn't happen." People really, really care what happened to Cooper, and if he's stranded in some hellscape, it's hard to get past the immediate despair to examine the artistic merits of the hellscape.I guess it's a catch-22: Twin Peaks wouldn't be a such a fully realized work of art if it hadn't breathed life into a Cooper that people love so much. But right now it's the love of Cooper that's holding people back from fully appreciating the art.Anyway, I think it'll take time, which is what you said. People will find their answers to what became of Cooper (through analysis, wishful thinking, or some combo). Some will rewatch a few months from now, when the whole thing is less raw, in a better frame of mind to appreciate the finer points. It happened with the original devastating "ending," and it'll happen this time too.Very nicely put. However I have a conundrum. I actually care less about what happened to Cooper and am more pissed off (not gonna say nicely) about what happened to ALL the others. Sure the center of the old show and of course the new are Cooper, in one form or another. But so many stories and so many players. All for naught?
What's interesting is I can read your post and insert the entire cast as as whole into each place you mentioned Cooper.
Interesting! Your position, Brandi, makes a whole lot more sense to me than some of the others I've read... My disappointment with Part 18 was mostly that I'd hoped The Return would culminate with a view--for the first time-- into the interior life of one of the female protagonists-- the "real" Diane, Sarah, or Laura. No such luck, but I've learned not to expect much of Lynch with respect to his representations of women....
As such your disappointment re: the lack of resolution for the rest of the ensemble makes a lot of sense. I guess Part 17 can lead us to the conclusion that everyone at the Sheriff's Station is safe--- for now? Ultimately, however, I suspect Lynch's and Frost's goal is to get us to fill in-- for ourselves--the explanations that most make sense to each of us. And, because my instincts tell me this might be what they intended, I find the tendency toward "my interpretation/explanation is correct" [or, a variation, "....is correct based on a preponderance of 'evidence'"] really rings hollow ...
But, following Sonia, I'd probably better cool my jets and wait to see what sorts of discussions appear once the dust has settled and folks have cooled down. The really trollish folks will not doubt be the first to disappear, the proliferation of competing "authoritative explanations" and systematic/totalizing theories will abide, and casual interest in the forum will likely wane.... .... ,Maybe at that point we'll see more thematic, topical, contextual, critical commentary/discussion...
In the meantime, I'll do my part by trying harder to initiate the variety of conversations that interest me ...
Interesting! Your position, Brandi, makes more sense to me... My disappointment was mostly that I'd hoped The Return would culminate with a view--for the first time-- into the interior life of one of the female protagonists-- the "real" Diane, Sarah, or Laura.
But I can totally understand your disappointment re: the lack of resolution for the rest of the ensemble. I guess Part 17 can lead us to the conclusion that everyone at the Sheriff's Station is safe--- for now.
Ultimately, however, I suspect Lynch's and Frost's goal is to get us to fill in-- for ourselves--the explanations that most make sense to each of us. And, because my instincts tell me this might be what they intended, I find the tendency toward "my interpretation/explanation is correct" [or, a variation, "....is correct based on a preponderance of 'evidence'"] really rings hollow ...
But, following Sonia, I'd probably better cool my jets and wait to see what sorts of discussions appear once the dust has settled and folks have cooled down. The really trollish folks will not doubt be the first to disappear, the proliferation of competing "authoritative explanations" and systematic/totalizing theories will abide, and casual interest in the forum will likely wane.... .... ,Maybe at that point we'll see more thematic, topical, contextual, critical commentary/discussion...
In the meantime, I'll do my part by trying harder to initiate the variety of conversations that interest me ...
It's not even so much about resolution. I had no expectation that ANYONE would live happily ever after. I'm just hurt that it feels like they were all erased after spending SOOOOOO much time letting us into their lives.
I for now am giving up on the "i know what happened because...." I've driven myself a little crazy and more than once have found myself on the edge of Mr. C. punching my computer. I am trying very hard to let the emotions settle, thus why I have not rewatched 17/18 yet.
I encourage and recommend not only initiating but also only engaging in the kinds of conversations you want to be part of. It has been immensely therapeutic for me. 🙂
It's not even so much about resolution. I had no expectation that ANYONE would live happily ever after. I'm just hurt that it feels like they were all erased after spending SOOOOOO much time letting us into their lives.
I for now am giving up on the "i know what happened because...." I've driven myself a little crazy and more than once have found myself on the edge of Mr. C. punching my computer. I am trying very hard to let the emotions settle, thus why I have not rewatched 17/18 yet.
I encourage and recommend not only initiating but also only engaging in the kinds of conversations you want to be part of. It has been immensely therapeutic for me. 🙂
Thanks, Brandi. Good advice, to be sure. All too often I get sucked into being trollish to others by invading "this is awful" or "I have the ultimate answer" topics!
Once more, Ric, I hope I haven'd done this to your topic!
Very nicely put. However I have a conundrum. I actually care less about what happened to Cooper and am more pissed off (not gonna say nicely) about what happened to ALL the others. Sure the center of the old show and of course the new are Cooper, in one form or another. But so many stories and so many players. All for naught?
What's interesting is I can read your post and insert the entire cast as as whole into each place you mentioned Cooper.
Right, either way the issue is that people respond first to the human element. We're - well - only human! Unless you're a dedicated student of art or film (and more power to you if you are), the artistic take comes later.
But here's what I think makes this show so difficult - and it's actually a credit to Lynch. Some experimental, avant-garde artists create characters that read like 2-D cutouts or archetypes, because they really just exist to act out the artist's vision. If it serves the vision, they're expendable. Whereas Twin Peaks has characters that strike a chord as real people, people you can love or pity, sometimes poignantly so. I said it somewhere else, but I'll repeat it: David Lynch couldn't have created this show if he didn't have a heart.
Which is why people feel that gut-punch when the artist-Lynch can seemingly be so callous to characters so lovingly created - whether it's hurling them into some cruel fate or throwing them aside altogether. People have written on that apparent "manhood" joke where Gordon Cole says he hasn't gone soft "where it counts." Some think it was really Lynch's warning that he's not about to go soft on his characters, whether he loves them or not. Too true. Sometimes, it turns out, they're still expendable.
After a few days to think about it, I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate MUCH more of what Lynch did here. I'm not even sure I see the ending as bleak anymore, which is major progress. But that first reaction really feels like a betrayal... which is why I think a clear-eyed assessment will take some time.
I don't think anyone is erased, exept to the exent that they cease to exist when we turn off the TV, or our friends cease to exist when they move away (or when we dream of them, and then wake up).
What I am SURE of is that DL doesn't make SIMPLISTIC stories (which "it's all just a dream" would be).
There is more story to tell, since, as the Doctor reminds us, we are all stories in the end.
Whether DL and/or MF choose to tell those stories is unknown, and doubtful, methinks.
I am not MAD about anything in the ending, and am sad about how it ended for Dale, and THAT it ended, for me.
1. A story that ends with "it was all a dream" is bad.
2. David Lynch doesn't make bad stories.
3. Therefore, Twin Peaks cannot end with "it was all a dream."
Ric, I think I follow the gist of your analysis. This all reminds me of the discussion we were having about the controversy over Lost as a precedent (my apologies here for letting that conversation wither...there's simply been too much to keep up with here!)
Believe me, I'm hip to that! 😉
I should add, I appreciate the humor your post offers right now, in a moment that seems (from my vantage) like it might be that of peak collective anguish/anxiety about The Return.
If I read you right, I think your syllogism might put you in a similar camp as the one I'm in... when I express how/why I'm still not clear what the fuss/stink is about elsewhere on the forum.
The Dream Police only begin to bother me when they immediately and frustratingly fall back on the "You just don't understand Lynch" response to anyone who thinks that it is possible that Twin Peaks (or large segments of it - like a whole season) might have been a dream.
To me it's circular reasoning:
Lynch would never end a story with "it was all a dream," because ending a story with "it was all a dream" is something Lynch would never do.
I have no idea whether Lynch intended to show that Richard was dreaming the whole town of Twin Peaks and it's zoo of zany characters or not. I tend to doubt it, but I'm not entirely sure.
But lest we forget, one of the best-loved and most-watched movies of all time (I know it was a command performance at my house back when there were only three channels and it only came on once a year) - The Wizard of OZ - was all a dream.
And guess what? As I think most of us know, The Wizard of OZ is one of Lynch's favorite films. Who knows, maybe he thought he could do a dream movie better.
And please don't misunderstand me. There are plenty of non-Dreamers who base their conclusions on sterling, sturdy logic and a very careful watching of Twin Peaks. I'm not talking about them, and besides, they know who they are. 😉
I don't intend to hijack your thread, but i wonder if the following thoughts are pertinent here:
Folks might be making too much out of the "dream" debate/hypothesis/explanation.
Consider:
Mulholland Drive begins with the camera falling into a pillow, a first-person depiction of preparing for sleep. Neither this scene, nor its function as a prologue to the film, necessarily constrains the ensuing narrative-- it merely invites us to suspend disbelief.
In The Return, we get an epilogue that prompts us in a similar direction. Arguably, its function is to retroactively frame the complete narrative, and, in this respect, it likewise doesn't necessarily need to impinge on how we experience/experienced the rest of the "film." [The second volume of Goethe's Faust comes to mind here...]
I anticipate the "dream vs. not a dream" debates will subside once viewers realize that, regardless of Lynch's fave disorientation device, we can still view his films with pleasure and fascination. After all, realism is but one narrative strategy.
And one that Lynch seldom uses, at least as far as I can tell.
The dreams debate will definitely decline directly. I just hope it isn't because of the intimidating "don't understand Lynch" line driving potential posters away.
The Return, IMO, is richer, more interesting, and more rewarding on account of how it employs a variety of narrative strategies/tricks to disorient the viewer, to denature the medium, and to subvert audience expectations.
I'm hopeful folks here will gradually let go of the "what happened vs. what didn't happen?" debates
Well, for me, for now, I find the "what happened" debates to be interesting, thought-provoking, and entertaining. Because, for one thing, I'm not even sure that I know what really happened! In fact, I'm sure I don't. 😉
-- IMO, these have the effect of limiting the scope and scale of aesthetic possibility in the The Return to mimesis, to what's familiar/comfortable...
Only then, IMO, might our discussions tackle what I (humbly, respectful of others differences, etc.) find to be more fascinating questions, e.g., how fair/accurate/deserved are hagiographic appraisals of Lynch's career?
Well, this is going to be a tough crowd for that discussion. 😉 Better start it soon, because soon only the Lynch lovers will be left here. Come to think of it, though, that's probably how it should be.
What does the "new topicality" evident in The Return tell us about Lynch's perspective on the world today?
Yeah. I guarantee you one thing: no rookie director in this day and age would be able to get away with following Tammy's long, slow, hip-swaying, stroll while Cole and Albert drooled and made goo-goo-googley eyes at her. Especially if one of those staring at her happened to be the director of the whole piece.
What about this perspective is outmoded and what other artists, texts, etc. should be recognized as pioneering new directions-- is there a "Lynch tradition?" Did Lynch forsake his characteristic earnestness in The Return ? Is this newly distanced position cynical or purposeful? If the latter, to what end? And, more important, does it succeed?
Thanks, in advance, for accommodating a greedily off-topic reply.... I'm eager to hear yours and others thoughts about all this, if any. Happy to start a new thread for this purpose, where frustration with "how the show fulfilled/failed to satisfy expectations" could shade over to more ... thoughtful(?).... critique/discussion....
Well, regarding off-topic replies, Mr. Pieter Dom and I are exactly congruent on this issue - who cares? 😉
Anyway, I sincerely hope you are able to have the kind of deeper discussions of David Lynch's art you desire. I think it would be productive, provacative and illuminating. But once again, don't wait too long, this Forum will eventually go the way of all flesh. 🙁
But wait, you've already sneakily started on MY THREAD!!! Bad, bad, baaad binoculars, Bad Fan!
Just kidding. 😉
- /< /\ /> -
I don't think anyone is erased, exept to the exent that they cease to exist when we turn off the TV, or our friends cease to exist when they move away (or when we dream of them, and then wake up).
That is why I said it "feels" erased. 🙂
It still feels and seems that way to me in the sense that they were just brushed off and that their stories were not honored.
This is a very well-thought-out post that deserves a better response from someone... but due to lack of time and mental focus, I just want to pick up on one point.I think you're asking people to examine the show as art. And of course when you think about art, it's important to consider your emotional response to it - but with some detachment. You can't really do that when the emotions are still coursing through you.The reason emotions are running so high is simply this: people care like hell about Cooper. David Lynch is an artist who's created many daring and insightful things in The Return - but the vehicle for bringing us into that world is this character that people don't relate to as an artistic creation but as a human, an old friend.That's why it's hard - at this point - to get past the question of "what happened vs. what didn't happen." People really, really care what happened to Cooper, and if he's stranded in some hellscape, it's hard to get past the immediate despair to examine the artistic merits of the hellscape.I guess it's a catch-22: Twin Peaks wouldn't be a such a fully realized work of art if it hadn't breathed life into a Cooper that people love so much. But right now it's the love of Cooper that's holding people back from fully appreciating the art.Anyway, I think it'll take time, which is what you said. People will find their answers to what became of Cooper (through analysis, wishful thinking, or some combo). Some will rewatch a few months from now, when the whole thing is less raw, in a better frame of mind to appreciate the finer points. It happened with the original devastating "ending," and it'll happen this time too.Thanks, in kind, for your thoughtful response, Sonia! My partner provided me a similarly perceptive perspective, via the reminder that, no matter what fascination I find in David Lynch or his work, I should recognize that his newly antagonistic relationship with the Twin Peaks fan community has the effect of feeding the auteur illusion/ideology/myth.... Indeed, she felt Part 18 betrayed an outright contempt for fan culture (e.g., by denying fans an Audrey explanation and, likewise, by returning Dale Cooper to a fate outside of the world he once inhabited...) that she found utterly offensive/reprehensible. Biting the hand that feeds you etc.
Your message reminds me that we are both (my partner and I) interacting with The Return with more distance than that of the heartfelt dedication of fans, both on this forum and more broadly. I've perhaps been unfair to this fan community... I don't mean to be sanctimonious or elitist. I'm just hungry/eager to engage with The Return , now that it's all done, from a wider variety of angles/approaches/frames. Good heavens-- there's just so much more to discuss!
Again, Ric, afraid I owe you an apology for pulling your topic in a new direction.
All I can say: Sometimes my arms bend back!
I'm in a similar boat, but Brandy's impassioned reactions have caused me to take a step back and realize that I needed to reexamine/investigate how I "felt" about the finale and the story overall. It's a bit like when I was attending art school: we were trained to be critical and analytic using art theory and other philosophies as tools. However, after a while I noticed that I was forgetting about humanity - even my own humanness - and of real human emotional reactions/interactions. Of course, many were also pushing for the "production" of more objective forms of art rather than subjective forms.
Emotions are still high. I think the larger discussions will happen once the dust finally settles.
Edit: I want to clarify that I wasn't without emotional investment during the journey. I laughed hysterically and balled my eyes out and everything in between and beyond. I might have brushed the importance of those things I felt, during the finale and overall, a little too hastily when reflecting and defending the finale (not that it changes any of my "theories," etc,).
Fire walk with