I didn't want it to be that but I believe you're all probably right. I've thought as much during the course of season 3. The beatnik poets did this kind of work. William Burroughs the most probably. It's all just thoughts and ideas, myths and themes, woven together to make a kind of story. The anti-story.
I'm not a fan of this kind of work. There was a time when I was intrigued and read a bunch of this stuff, but ultimately I found it frustrating and pointless. At first you're like ooh this author is a genius, he's revealing mystical truths, but then you realize it's all just nonsensical bullshit that goes on way too long. There is no great meaning or over arching, mind blowing, idea. And it's a shame because, in some cases, a brilliant writer just decided to waste there talent on making gibberish You can see the potential of what the story could have been and it's sad because what you get is a willful fuck you from the writer. "My work isn't meant to be understood. There is no beginning and no end. You can't figure it out because it's everything and nothing" blah blah blah
To be a bit more positive I've ingested worse nonsense entertainment. At least there was some structure to hold on to here and lots of great elements and fun mysteries, but human beings brains demand structure and order. We need to make patterns and all the pieces fit. When we can't or they don't its very unsatisfying. So why do so many artists feel like creating that kind of art is the pinnacle? Why would you want a fan base that's frustrated and unsatisfied? I think that all the open ended interpretation that's present in season 3 is kind of neat but I don't know if it's what I wan't from entertainment. I think it's harder to create something like this, take us to the brink, and then make it all fit in some incredible brilliant way.
There's another thing that show writers do a lot that leads to these kinds of stories and that is they write them as they go and so they change and mutate as they go along. Sometimes they write themselves into a corner and can't find a great way out or a perfect ending so then the go for ambiguous and open ended. I wish that when they put a new show on TV that they would have it all mapped out, Beginning, middle, and end. They'd know exactly were the show is going and when it's going to end. Perfect. This is just my opinion and it's evolving, I'm not married to it. It's just kind of how I feel now.
I get your drift but there are valid artistic works that don't tell a story. They engage the brain in other ways and the satisfaction can come from understanding why a particular thing evokes a certain response, emotion or whatever.
Much - arguably most - of Bunuel's work doesn't bother with a conventional narrative, and sometimes doesn't bother with a narrative at all, or at best, a completely ambiguous resolution. They're still great works, IMO, despite the lack of story.
Bowie's "Instrumentals with voice" sections on Low are beautifully done, even if the lyrics are gibberish. The sounds fit well with the music and the whole thing works well.
Yes, I agree we seek patterns and structure, which is probably why things that don't follow this line are received with negative responses and sometimes hostility. Doesn't mean they aren't "good", it just means they're uncomfortable (in a purely intellectual sense) because they don't fit into any of our wiring.
I get your drift but there are valid artistic works that don't tell a story. They engage the brain in other ways and the satisfaction can come from understanding why a particular thing evokes a certain response, emotion or whatever.
Much - arguably most - of Bunuel's work doesn't bother with a conventional narrative, and sometimes doesn't bother with a narrative at all, or at best, a completely ambiguous resolution. They're still great works, IMO, despite the lack of story.
Bowie's "Instrumentals with voice" sections on Low are beautifully done, even if the lyrics are gibberish. The sounds fit well with the music and the whole thing works well.
Yes, I agree we seek patterns and structure, which is probably why things that don't follow this line are received with negative responses and sometimes hostility. Doesn't mean they aren't "good", it just means they're uncomfortable (in a purely intellectual sense) because they don't fit into any of our wiring.
YES! Pardon the unfiltered reply post here... but: How wonderful to compare The Return to not just Bunuel, but to Low (!) in the same post, no less (!!)... I'm partial to music (I'm a fan) but I also think there's a lot to the notion that we can experience/enjoy The Return as: a) something that occurs in time b) as something that necessarily flirts with a variety of conventions but (unnecessarily) commits to none, and, c) as something that may or may not resolve in any sort of intuitive way ... but will certainly end, one way or another...
All this strikes me as quintessentially musical. Indeed, reaching for music's "ineffable" qualities from within another medium strikes me as the project of French symbolist poetry. Off the top of my head, I also think the analogy works as well for parts of Low as it does for Mahler's early symphonies, replete as they are with self-borrowings and nested gestures toward more conventional, popular genres...
And, I can't help but add that the quasi-systematic way that Lynch explores metaphorical fetish-objects (or metaphors as fetish objects?) is a rather Wagnerian approach to film... ironic, perhaps, given that so much of the soundscape of The Return is both non-musical and diegetic -- we're a long way from "Laura's theme" marking out every moment of pathos before wending its way back to the darkness of the forest...
Wow wow wow. So much to think about! Thanks, all.
I get your drift but there are valid artistic works that don't tell a story. They engage the brain in other ways and the satisfaction can come from understanding why a particular thing evokes a certain response, emotion or whatever.
Much - arguably most - of Bunuel's work doesn't bother with a conventional narrative, and sometimes doesn't bother with a narrative at all, or at best, a completely ambiguous resolution. They're still great works, IMO, despite the lack of story.
Bowie's "Instrumentals with voice" sections on Low are beautifully done, even if the lyrics are gibberish. The sounds fit well with the music and the whole thing works well.
Yes, I agree we seek patterns and structure, which is probably why things that don't follow this line are received with negative responses and sometimes hostility. Doesn't mean they aren't "good", it just means they're uncomfortable (in a purely intellectual sense) because they don't fit into any of our wiring.
YES! How wonderful to compare The Return to not just Bunuel, but to Low, in the same post, no less... I'm partial to music (I'm a fan) but I think the notion that we can experience/enjoy The Return as something that occurs in time, as something that necessarily flirts with a variety of conventions but (unnecessarily) commits to none, and as something that, as such, may or may not resolve in any sort of intuitive way ... but will certainly end, one way or another...
All this strikes me as quintessentially musical. Reaching for music's "ineffable" qualities from within another medium strikes me as the project of French symbolist poetry. Off the top of my head, I think the analogy works as well for parts of Low as it does for Mahler's early symphonies...
And, I can't help but add that the quasi-systematic way that Lynch explores metaphorical fetish-objects (or metaphors as fetish objects?) is a rather Wagnerian approach to film... ironically, perhaps, given that so much of the soundscape of The Return is both non-musical and diegetic -- we're a long way from "Laura's theme" marking out every moment of pathos before wending its way back to the darkness of the forest...
Wow wow wow. So much to think about! Thanks, all.
Funny you should mention diegetic music in this context; I posted some time ago that it's my favourite way to use music in tv and movies and generally speaking, I don't like background or mood music in visuals. I make an exception for the Fireman's Theme and the mangled versions of Moonlight Sonata and American Woman because they were perfect.
Don't wish to hijack the thread-- we're overdue for a deep dive into Lynch, Badalamenti, and The Return, perhaps in the Double-R diner topic (I'll work on this when time permits)-- but I just want to reply, briefly, with a fond reminiscence of the uncanny jukebox in the Double R diner ... The "splatter-platter"-ish organ in this scene is both diegetic and decidedly not of this world ... seems to call into question this very distinction, as well as perhaps whether "Audrey's Theme," in its original appearance, is, in fact, "underscore/backing music" or ... is it in her head??(!)
So much there. Wow.
From the Buzzcocks "I Don't Mind"...
Reality's a dream
A game in which I seem to never find out just what I am
I don't know if I'm an actor or ham
A shaman or sham but if you don't mind, I don't mind
Appropriate enough, I reckon.
Don't wish to hijack the thread-- we're overdue for a deep dive into Lynch, Badalamenti, and The Return, perhaps in the Double-R diner topic (I'll work on this when time permits)-- but I just want to reply, briefly, with a fond reminiscence of the uncanny jukebox in the Double R diner ... The "splatter-platter"-ish organ in this scene is both diegetic and decidedly not of this world ... seems to call into question this very distinction, as well as perhaps whether "Audrey's Theme," in its original appearance, is, in fact, "underscore/backing music" or ... is it in her head??(!)
So much there. Wow.
There's a lot of talk in drama about breaking the fourth wall but it seems to me that Frost and Lynch have been breaking the first wall quite a lot through this series.
From the Buzzcocks "I Don't Mind"...
Reality's a dream
A game in which I seem to never find out just what I am
I don't know if I'm an actor or ham
A shaman or sham but if you don't mind, I don't mindAppropriate enough, I reckon.
Couldn't have said it better! Thanks, Sam.
I did a Dougie-Jones spit-take when I saw this:
That's me, I imagine. Lol.
Sam, I think you are correct, but I just can't accept it. It is a natural thing, to expect books and films to tell a story that leads to some kind of result, conclusion, solution. I know many films don't give one definitive ending or solutions for all the mysteries contained within them. But in most cases, viewers leave with a fairly good idea of what was going on.
I think Lynch has taken the "death of the author" idea to an extreme. A creator delivers the material, and once out in the world, others decide it. But people naturally long to know what was the author's intent, what meanings did he attach to what he laid out for us. I simply didn't want to decide this story.
The series looks neither like art for arts sake, nor art mimicking life. I have moved on to other interests and, though I love the whole series, I doubt that I will ever watch it again. Just parts of it.
Same here. I know that I shouldn't expect a "typical" ending from Lynch, but part of me still does. That is why even as I don't think it's going to happen, a part of me still believes - or wants to believe - that we will eventually get a proper closure for Cooper, Audrey, Laura and the rest.
Yes, I can draw or make up my own conclusion about what happened to Audrey, make it a happy one even. But I'd rather know the truth no matter how it turns out to be.
As an example of lack of closure, given that Audrey wrote that letter to her father in TSOTP, Mark Frost may not have written anything about her in The Final Dossier.
All David Lynch may have seen was Audrey looking in a mirror in a white room in one of his meditation sessions and thought she was trapped somewhere, hence her 'get me out of here' statement, and may have back written the Charlie scene. He may have got there from him having her in the bank explosion. Also she didn't sign on 'til The Return was in Production.
In both writer's heads, that may be it, as in neither thought any more of it.
Sabrina S stated neither she nor David Lynch have read TSHOTP, although I'm sure during their writing sessions Mark Frost would have given him the gist of it.
Beyond that DL may have been doing the same as us, (or not), i.e. what if Audrey was in that situation?
The truth about Audrey may not exist...yet.
As for me, the ending didn't matter in a sense, other than it stopped. I personally didn't connect with Audrey in the first two seasons until her last scene which arguably was the end of her story arc, i.e. experienced conflict and change, she had come of age if you like.
While I didn't need closure on any of it, I believe I'm still in a state of mourning. I've lived it week to week, I created a routine around it while not working, watching the 15 second clip on Monday afternoon here in NZ, watching the show, twice, then reading selected reviews, and then commenting here. btw I do have a job, starts week after next... 🙂
There's a gargantuan void now it's over, and while perhaps jigsaw shaped, for now and maybe forever only I can continue it with my own shapes and colours, but without edge pieces.
Funny, writing that last sentence leaves me once again emotional about how much the original meant to me, and how much The Return has, given I've also lived the 25 years of my own life.
Frost's involvement doesn't necessarily mean there must be a cohesive story. Although sometimes a more organised person can help to make a more chaotic person more organised, sometimes a chaotic person can lead an organised person astray. I remember Mark describing the writing process as being like a game of tennis. Maybe if each time David returned the ball it had been turned inside out and painted purple, it kinds of prevented Mark from playing a proper game of tennis.
Also, there was a point where Mark went off to work on his book and let David continue working on the script alone. Who knows what level of insane disruption Lynch did to the script after that point. Of course, Mark gave it final approval before filming, and didn't change anything. Maybe he thought, "What the heck? Why the hell not? It'll be funny to see people try to make sense of it."
My thinking is, if Mark Frost wanted to make something that made sense, he'd have written something on his own. Oh wait...
Very true. I do get that too, and I love all 3 season of this show. The ending did not anger me and I have absolutely enjoyed trying to figure it all out. For as much as I just complained about it I do find myself always drawn to these types of creators and these kinds of works. I love Neal Stephenson's stuff which usually has these kinds of endings. I do think I'd enjoy it more though if there is a satisfying solution rather than a "well, it's whatever you want it to be" kind of story. But that's just me. That's what I like And that has nothing to do with anyone else's feelings or the validity of any art.
Very true. I do get that too, and I love all 3 season of this show. The ending did not anger me and I have absolutely enjoyed trying to figure it all out. For as much as I just complained about it I do find myself always drawn to these types of creators and these kinds of works. I love Neal Stephenson's stuff which usually has these kinds of endings. I do think I'd enjoy it more though if there is a satisfying solution rather than a "well, it's whatever you want it to be" kind of story. But that's just me. That's what I like And that has nothing to do with anyone else's feelings or the validity of any art.
You know, it may not be about telling a story at all. Maybe it's just about the emotions that you are feeling when you view the various scenes, rather than drawing a protagonist through a series of incidents to reach a conclusion. Or maybe it's something to make you reflect on Western society, or the nature of good and evil, or the mutability of time, or whatever. No real story involved in any way, just a series of linked incidents in and around the principal character.
So, that way, there would be a definite idea, not just an open ended "Well, it's whatever you want" thing, but a collection of moving images that tell you something else, away from a straight narrative.
As I posted before, I have no idea if this is correct, just something to consider. In any case, we did get a resolution in Episode 17. Perhaps that's as close as we get to a straight narrative. Who knows? It could be a combination of many things. One thing I am sure of is that Frost and Lynch absolutely would not want to alienate their viewers by flipping them the bird, which means, somehow, somewhere, there is a point to it all, just maybe not the point we expected.
I'm not sure how there *could* be an ending or resolution as it's not really one single question. We've seen updates and snapshots - and I suspect we'll get more in the future in 1 way or another - and I think it's very much up to individual viewers to interpret what they mean.
I agree with Eric Peters that people will reach a conclusion which works for them - and it's been good fun having the forum to bounce ideas around. I've really enjoyed reading all the different ideas - some have made sense to me now, others I might agree with in the future.
To me there's about a million different versions of The Return - and this forum has (probably!) discussed most of them. There's so many different way to interpret all the constituent parts - it reminds me of a book I had when I was wee which had divided pages & you could mix up the heads, bodies & tails of different animals to make strange creatures.
Frost's involvement doesn't necessarily mean there must be a cohesive story. Although sometimes a more organised person can help to make a more chaotic person more organised, sometimes a chaotic person can lead an organised person astray. I remember Mark describing the writing process as being like a game of tennis. Maybe if each time David returned the ball it had been turned inside out and painted purple, it kinds of prevented Mark from playing a proper game of tennis.
Also, there was a point where Mark went off to work on his book and let David continue working on the script alone. Who knows what level of insane disruption Lynch did to the script after that point. Of course, Mark gave it final approval before filming, and didn't change anything. Maybe he thought, "What the heck? Why the hell not? It'll be funny to see people try to make sense of it."
My thinking is, if Mark Frost wanted to make something that made sense, he'd have written something on his own. Oh wait...
Just a further note on the writing process (I believe this was in the AMA, but I've been reading so much lately I could be remembering incorrectly lol): when Mark Frost left to write the Secret History, Lynch and his crew actually sent any script updates Frost's way so he could review them as he wrote the book. So Frost was definitely trying to work back from S3 to make it fit properly between the old and new run, but that doesn't stop continuity conflicts arising from changes made in post-production via editing, etc.
And I'm glad (albeit not surprised) to see other people here drawing comparisons between this work and others such as Naked Lunch and Bunuel's films that really break our conventional modes of narrative form. I've definitely been on that track myself lately.
S3 also reminded me very much of the ambiguity of Philip K. Dick's Ubik, which also happens to deal with dream-states (a bardo-like half-death that people can be suspended in). It too contains an ending that leaves many questions about the nature of reality unanswered and hanging.
I do also wonder if Mark Frost wasn't interested in creating a closed narrative himself. The intentional errors and ambiguities throughout the Secret History strike me as him playing along in creating an unstable reality in which there isn't necessarily a definite mode of singular truth and fact to narrative events.
Plus, if I recall correctly, Frost actually approached Lynch with an idea for this season that sparked Lynch's interest enough to finally make it, so I do wonder what exactly that initial pitch could have been. Perhaps it was there that the germ to have Dale go back, save Laura, and destabilize reality was born? Or something akin to that, allowing them a nebulous playground in which both author's contributions can ultimately all be canon, even while in conflict with one another? Pure conjecture on that, but I am curious how he managed to get Lynch interested enough finally!
To me, it's rather brilliant that Lynch & Frost, with this season (and the book preceding it, plus perhaps the one after) have created for themselves a scenario in which there is not a definitive truth to the narrative facts, and thus each author's voice is equally valid, even when narrative tensions arise between the two.
That's exactly what happened in The Return and also the reason I don't think it was a success in the end.
Lynch used Twin Peaks as a means to make a symbolic and allegorical series about life in general instead of progressing the series we've always loved.
In terms of the narrative...it just doesn't matter.
It will never make complete sense.
...just like life.
Fire walk with