They find a lucky penny. The USA government forced the Nez Pierce off the Alamogordo desert in order to built Trinity site to test the first atomic bomb. Most of them moved to the surrounding area. The boy kinda looks like Hawk.
I don't think the girl in 1956 was manipulative at all. She seemed really innocent, more like a Donna than a Laura, before the bug caught her. She was listening to the radio dreamily after her first kiss.
Sorry, I got really caught up with that preconceived notion of the female as manipulative, I feel Twin Peaks goes way beyond this tired trope. Even with Laura, who is a broken child and a victim of abuse, it seems that her "manipulative" powers are less in her intentions and more in other people's views about her.
I argue that things are more complicated that this here, and agree with Bobby at Lauaras funeral that all were guilty, including Laura herself, also what she writes in her diary that hawk found (no one cares about my problems, never will, they think Im innocent, now I no longer care about them anylonger, etc.). So incidentally Laura agrees with me as well....she went 'evil' out of revenge against the very idea that no matter what 'she is a perfect angel' that was preventing people from helping her. I think 'Laura is innocent' is the preconceived trope which allows the crimes to go unchecked, as if no matter what she does or what people do to her, she is somehow a perfect kind of angel, and this preconception is what allowed the abuse of Laura to continue, and the community to sleep for 25 years without solving any of it. Laura is perfect no matter what just supports the crimes against more like her, since no one sees a need to solve the problem.
The community was guilty as well, very much so, inclusive of James, bookhouse boys, etc., precisely because they ignored her problems, which were very real and coming from the heart of the community, but instead preferred to pretend that no matter what 'she was a perfect angel', their community was pure and not guilty etc., while they participated in the abuse. This is what Bobby pointed out at the funeral, that all were guilty including Laura, and why James tried to attack him. This very approach of 'Laura is an innocent golden child' no matter what was how Lauras problems got ignored; and the community basically turned her into something like a ritual sacrifice as they all took a part of her and ignored her suffering. Laura herself began to enjoy this out of spite for the community, all she wanted to do was prove to them that she was no longer an angel and that it was the community's fault, etc., so her problems could be addressed, when this never came, she began to enjoy it just out of spiting the community(the sort of approach: you think im so golden angel, these are your dreams, well come see, etc.....she definitely wanted revenge on that community)(how she treated james, bobby, etc., she was better than them, with some power men, and definitely she manipulated almost everyone around her, etc.). Quite a nasty situation with no easy answers, but Laura definitely was guilty as well in the end and took the ring, married to BOB......
Also remember how easy Donna was corrupted by trying to compete with Laura in 'fire walk with me', trying to be like Laura, figure out Laura, who purposely sent her towards the same hell, which Laura thought was the truth of twin peaks, it was her pain.......
The Nez Percé are from Twin Peaks area, Idaho, Washington state. Always were.
My first thought was that the girl was Sarah Palmer and the egg and creature was Bob or an aspect of him. I then remembered that in the original series during Leland's breakdown just before he died he said that Bob came to him when he was innocent and just a young boy. If they grew up together maybe the girl could be Sarah and she would end up passing it to Leland somehow.
I think the creature is Bob. Not the evil that is BOB, but the first vessel that BOB takes over. If the girl is young, I assume Bob is put up for adoption and moves around a lot. He will end up near Twin Peaks / Pear Lakes. Then at a certain point the evil that is BOB leaves the Bob body to look for more people to take over.
I don't think the girl in 1956 was manipulative at all. She seemed really innocent, more like a Donna than a Laura, before the bug caught her. She was listening to the radio dreamily after her first kiss.
Sorry, I got really caught up with that preconceived notion of the female as manipulative, I feel Twin Peaks goes way beyond this tired trope. Even with Laura, who is a broken child and a victim of abuse, it seems that her "manipulative" powers are less in her intentions and more in other people's views about her.
I argue that things are more complicated that this here (...)
(I just quoted you to be clear it was an answer)
I see what you mean, but me saying I don't think the trope of "manipulative female" fits perfectly doesn't mean I said Laura was innocent. It just means that her reading as a manipulative bitch is as mysoginistic and simplifying as the reading of her as a perfect angel - and characters read her in both ways in the series, either because this badness creates an aura of "mystery" and misundrrstanding around her or because they can't get past the homecoming queen ideal.
As for Donna, she is the perfect example of this duality. In FWWM Laura later talks to her earnestly and says she doesn't want Donna to be like her - Laura, here, thinking Donna is purely "good" but ultimately raising a good point: Laura is like this because of everything she has endured, putting on this attitude is an escape valve for her to cope with the abuse. Donna comes from a much more stable household and even when she rebels, she would consciously never go as far as Laura went. She knows herself she isn't a saint and there are bad feelings in her (especially after Laura dies).
So, to sum up, none of them are innocent. Doesn't mean they are conniving and evil either.
I'm afraid we've gone too off-topic here, but I see we probably understood each other already (: .
right, so the creature puking was played by Erica Eynon? but this still 'begs the question' why call it experiment....
Probably because she is THE outcome of the atomic blast, the physical manifestation in actual body of the splitting of the atom Experiment. Just that.
right, so the creature puking was played by Erica Eynon? but this still 'begs the question' why call it experiment....
Probably because she is THE outcome of the atomic blast, the physical manifestation in actual body of the splitting of the atom Experiment. Just that.
right so the outcome of the atomic blast, as embodied in this sick vomiting abomination of 'life', is the 'experiment', and an experiment is something like testing an idea on the living(thus the spirits which comes down, seem like 'aliens', foreign intruders from the red room, dougie-cooper, or his enemies (woodsmen/BOB, Jean Michel, et al.). Also, if we think of the experiment like this, then the realization of the principle of permanent atomic blast/apocalypse also extends to its more developed manifeastations that open up in reality after the initial imposition, which would explain why the 'egg' that is hatched in the aftermath of an atomic blast is part of the realization of this experiment, its development inside of everyone who listen to the radio etc., the experiment is ongoing, and is still around in New York as government surveillance which watches the red room by billionaire, and kills anyone in whom good cooper(another way) would try to manifest itself.
The experiment is ongoing, my point in trying to question 'the experiment' is to try to not reduce the implications of this name to just having to identify its 'charachter' and then move on, as if this satisfies the mystery of the name and how it relates to the episode. The name 'experiment', begs the question, why call one creature and experiment, what is the experiment? why is it related to the world, desert american town, radio taking over by terror spreading woodsmen, etc.?, clearly these things are all connected/antagonistic), the name experiment indicates that this creature is more like a logic or idea 'tested' on the world, a base model for an extended project....to argue about who the 'character' is just is the first clue, raises more questions than it answers.....
Blast taking over radio/internet, etc., something like shock and terror tactics of capitalist state to use torture through media, shock people, to control population behavior in the aftermath of terror). for example the 'life' born out of the atomic blast, the egg that takes over the girl, cheerleading support(roadhouse crowd) for Mr. C which keeps him alive(time and time again BOB BOB BOB, etc.). The chant supports this kind of idea, going to extremes(deep woods, too close to fire and burned, north pole, etc.), black inside hides under the white outside, they support each other, radio supports woodsmen, etc., what everyone looks to for spiritual guidance, etc., where and how dreams/desire supposed to be realized)
"Also remember how easy Donna was corrupted by trying to compete with Laura in 'fire walk with me', trying to be like Laura, figure out Laura, who purposely sent her towards the same hell, which Laura thought was the truth of twin peaks, it was her pain......."
Donna loved her deeply and was willing to do almost anything to remain close to Laura. A part of Laura, influenced by Bob & jaded by drugs wants to bring others down to her level, but another part does not, as shown in the Canada club scene where it hits her that she DOESN'T want Donna to follow the same path, and gets Jacques to help get her back home, and the next morning she tells Donna she doesn't want her to end up like herself.
I don't think the girl in 1956 was manipulative at all. She seemed really innocent, more like a Donna than a Laura, before the bug caught her. She was listening to the radio dreamily after her first kiss.
Sorry, I got really caught up with that preconceived notion of the female as manipulative, I feel Twin Peaks goes way beyond this tired trope. Even with Laura, who is a broken child and a victim of abuse, it seems that her "manipulative" powers are less in her intentions and more in other people's views about her.
I argue that things are more complicated that this here (...)
(I just quoted you to be clear it was an answer)
I see what you mean, but me saying I don't think the trope of "manipulative female" fits perfectly doesn't mean I said Laura was innocent. It just means that her reading as a manipulative bitch is as mysoginistic and simplifying as the reading of her as a perfect angel - and characters read her in both ways in the series, either because this badness creates an aura of "mystery" and misundrrstanding around her or because they can't get past the homecoming queen ideal.
As for Donna, she is the perfect example of this duality. In FWWM Laura later talks to her earnestly and says she doesn't want Donna to be like her - Laura, here, thinking Donna is purely "good" but ultimately raising a good point: Laura is like this because of everything she has endured, putting on this attitude is an escape valve for her to cope with the abuse. Donna comes from a much more stable household and even when she rebels, she would consciously never go as far as Laura went. She knows herself she isn't a saint and there are bad feelings in her (especially after Laura dies).
So, to sum up, none of them are innocent. Doesn't mean they are conniving and evil either.
I'm afraid we've gone too off-topic here, but I see we probably understood each other already (: .
I really have to disagree, both sides of Laura(homecoming queen and Jacques' idiot) were both on display in their full range of behavior and potentials in 'fire walk with me' and the final episode of season 2, and Laura fully identified with both of them, crying over them and enjoying them intensely('is it true, etc.'). furthermore all the 'deep, hidden' parts, her infinite affirmations and 'deep hidden' spiritual world were on full display in their terror via the red room. All of her deep secrets were revealed and admitted by Laura herself (in her diary, tapes to Jacobi, etc.), a very nasty tragedy, a blue rose, but there is not some hidden refuge....all was exposed in infinite detail.....and nothing was done about it....now this is the problem....always was for Laura, and why she turned evil
If there was any redeeming message of Laura, it was that she knew that she was nothing apart from her appearance in the community, and thus never forgave for what the community did to her, nor accepted it as OK because of some hidden 'core', she knew very well she had been damaged to her core by how the people in the community 'read her' and treated her, and that this is all there is and she is trapped in it......which opens up the way to investigate the community and fix the problems once people are shocked by such a tragedy, or just let it go for 25 years, because she has to be good no matter what(James approach). its a real tragedy she went the way she did, and maybe in a different place/community she would have ended up better, but like she said, no one cared to even recognize her problems, rather taking shelter in some hidden core 'laura' that was always guaranteed no matter what they did to her and what she did to herself....twin peaks(show and community) is actually very brutal in this regard: in the end she is Laura, what she does, and is quite a contrast to someone like Janey E who also has to deal with a corrupted community
(I just quoted you to be clear it was an answer)
I see what you mean, but me saying I don't think the trope of "manipulative female" fits perfectly doesn't mean I said Laura was innocent. It just means that her reading as a manipulative bitch is as mysoginistic and simplifying as the reading of her as a perfect angel - and characters read her in both ways in the series, either because this badness creates an aura of "mystery" and misundrrstanding around her or because they can't get past the homecoming queen ideal.
You do realize that using the way people read you, leading them on, while having hidden motives, etc. is manipulation?
Just an idea, but could Girl (1956) be Linda?
I noticed strange marks on Tikaeni Faircrest's legs. Maybe that's why "Linda" needed a wheelchair in present day Twin Peaks?
Carl said something about the "effing war" in response to Linda's needs for a wheelchair, and her 'husband' riding with Carl seemed to be way too young to have a wife that was a teenager in the 1950s.
All we know of this girl is that:
- she's got some weird, "grasshopper eye" marking on her knees. We haven't yet learned that about any other characters.
- She seemed to have some rudimentary extra sensory perception, or at least it's suggested as much. She just "knew" the boy lived down by the school despite never having been there before. We have all kinds of characters in TP universe who seem to have some gift for such perception, including both Cooper and Mrs. Palmer.
- The boy who walks with her was recently involved in a relationship with a girl named Mary, but he's suave enough to get what he's after (in this case, a kiss). That makes me equally suspicious of who HE is rather than just her. And tell me his little smirk at the end coupled with his "I hope it does bring you good luck" line weren't just a tad creepy?
I feel like it will be too obvious if she winds up being Laura's mother, though she dose seem to fit the bill in terms of age, being marked by the beast, and having some "ability" of her own (she could see Bob).
Beyond that it's just guesses. Donna's mother was also in a wheelchair at times. And Audrey's mother seems particularly unpleasant in every scene she's featured in. There's a youtube video out there of this scene where the credits were removed and you see the face of Girl 1956 go from sort of a pleasant, peaceful rest to one that looks increasingly nasty/negative.
I would also invite people to go back and look at the way Audrey Horne was depicted in the original TP debut and compare that to this "Girl 1956", as I think there are some strong suggestions of similarity there; from the style of skirt, to the way their hair is kept. All that's missing are saddle shoes.
I'm totally going back on everything and guessing she is, in fact, the "Judy" from FWWM. I just can't fit this GIrl, 1956 neatly into any of the characters we already know, and we don't know anything about Judy beyond the fact that a monkey mentions her and Jeffries doesn't want to discuss her.
I've never read the SHOTP so I don't know if it gives us any other clues on Judy's identity?
Also, given last episode, is the suggestion that the gas station where she picked up the penny is close to where Hastings was just killled in that sort of abandoned building lot? I got mixed signals as to whether those places were the same, but it would make sense if the Woodsmen were descending into our world from there, and were busy doing whatever it is that Woodsmen spend 50 years doing there. Ostensibly preparing convenience stores for the arrival of darker, more evil entities.
So that would make Girl, 1956 a Buckhorn, SD area resident, right? Same as the boy she was with?
Do we know anything about the childhoods of Judy, Jeffries, or Cole?
I've seen the excerpt from SHOTP that discusses the "flying frogs" and mentions a woman covered in them that the Indians worshipped. Count me as hoping beyond hope that the upcoming episode title "Tell that story again, Charlie" is about HER!
Also, given last episode, is the suggestion that the gas station where she picked up the penny is close to where Hastings was just killled in that sort of abandoned building lot? I got mixed signals as to whether those places were the same, but it would make sense if the Woodsmen were descending into our world from there, and were busy doing whatever it is that Woodsmen spend 50 years doing there. Ostensibly preparing convenience stores for the arrival of darker, more evil entities.
So that would make Girl, 1956 a Buckhorn, SD area resident, right? Same as the boy she was with?
This is an interesting idea. I can't speak for others, but I assumed the entire B&W sequence was set in the vicinity of the atomic bomb experiment, White Sands, NM. I'd have to go re-watch for evidence but perhaps my assumption was incorrect. Speaking of Buckhorn, although it's fictional, we've seen its location on a SD map. Guess what's right nearby? Deadwood. Twin Peaks has a nearby Ghostwood so naturally Buckhorn should be near Deadwood, right?
This is an interesting idea. I can't speak for others, but I assumed the entire B&W sequence was set in the vicinity of the atomic bomb experiment, White Sands, NM. I'd have to go re-watch for evidence but perhaps my assumption was incorrect.
The onscreen titles show the year changing from 1945 to 1956 - then state "August 5, New Mexico Desert". I believe the entire sequence that follows (frogmoth hatching, teenagers, radio station, etc.) is set in New Mexico.
Fire walk with