Does he introduce all of these superfluous characters and storylines when the main characters are all left open ended, except Dougie, Janie and Norma, Big Ed?
WHY don't we get to learn simple things like how Jerry ended up in North Dakota or Wyoming or where ever?
WHY do we have all of these "almost pertinent" conversations at the roadhouse and not enough divulgent conversations throughout the series.
Isn't the author responsible to his readers and his characters AND the world he created for some semblance of order? If not is is all chaos and they can do what ever they want with no repercussions...
I saw an interview where Lynch talked about all these people wanting to talk to the author but the author was dead for centuries. That doesn't apply here, this is the world of social media and the internet, things that Lynch himself uses and is very up to date about. We are here, talk to us!
Here are a few opening thoughts, and I'll come back to add some more throughout the day. (And throughout all this, I apologize if I sound argumentative or even condescending; I'll be trying to offer up why I myself love this artsy fartsy stuff when it frustrates us.)
1. Opening thought: Even though the show is utterly surreal (and some/all those "superfluous" characters in the Roadhouse might be passing dream figures), isn't it a lot like real life to have characters come and go? Throughout our lives, we might get really excited about new people entering, but then they suddenly disappear and don't mean as much as we had expected; take dating for example. I feel James's pain!
2. Go look for the "Solving the Billy mystery" thread; it's titled something like that. Forum members are trying to piece together all the names mentioned by passing characters in search of who exactly Billy is and what's going on with Audrey. I myself don't need to find a concrete map among the characters, but there might be one tying them all together, and if so, the show leaves it up to us the viewers to figure it out. The authors don't give us the answer. We are here to help author it. In this way, Lynch/Frost pull off something novel: They interact with us the audience. They toy with us (see video below) and in return, we each, either en groupe (like here) or as individuals participate in authoring the story. This isn't plain old story writing. This leads to...
3. The show is modern/post-modern art. Consider Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. It's premiere set off a riot in the Paris opera house because concertgoers didn't think it was really music. In retrospect, it broke boundaries and became one of the 20th century's most important pieces of music (and the music on Hoth in Star Wars was a direct ripoff 60 years later; it took some time, but people warmed up and accepted the sound as "music").
So the artist/author does not have a responsibility to the viewer. Lynch was really peeved when ABC forced him to reveal who Laura's killer was; he never intended to answer that question at the start. In TPTR, the businessman dating Norma and franchising her restaurants was played by Grant Goodeve, who starred on ABC's vanilla sitcom "Eight is Enough." He represents plain network TV that cut the corners off of David Lynch's art in the original Twin Peaks and tried to make it more profitable, under the assumption that the network knew what the public wanted and how to give it to them at max profits--just like how the businessman is trying to change Norma's recipes to maximize profits. When Lynch got fed up with ABC after revealing the Bob/Leland connection and left the Twin Peaks set, the show went way downhill. So in TPTR, Lynch did everything with pure art ingredients. He cut no corners. He was being pure artist, pushing forward and breaking boundaries, even though that often frustrates audiences.
I know Norma's pies also please audiences, but if she didn't stick 100% to being true to herself, she might end up pushing out that crappy plastic fastfood cherry turnover Chantal ate. David Lynch had to stay 100% true to his art roots for this season, even though that means to him owing nothing to the audience.
4. Methinks all the passing characters lend to a variety of different overall interpretations of the season and the ending, none of which is "correct." There are many different "correct" interpretations. In one interview (maybe the same you're referencing) Lynch said he wouldn't want to confirm or deny anybody's interpretations of his work, because it's up to the viewer to make of the art their own individual meanings. I might come back with some individual examples as time goes by.
If you read all that, thanks for indulging me. I enjoyed being toyed around with, because I can't get it from other shows. I don't want things wrapped up in a neat package, because real life is not wrapped in a neat package. I can glean much more usable wisdom from openly interpreting the show--as one does an ancient and unclear religious text--than I can from a normal narrative show/movie. Right now, I'm enjoying applying Buddhist interpretations of the ending to my life; and one message from Buddhism is to LET GO of expectations; ergo, "let go of the expectation that those 'superfluous characters' in the show will mean something, or that certain stories/people in our lives will come back."
OK, thanks again for reading all that, especially if I sounded like a condescending artsy prick. If you've never seen Siskel & Ebert debate Blue Velvet, watch it. Siskel understood Lynch's MO long before Ebert, but Ebert eventually changed his mind when Mulholland Drive came out.
Re: Roadhouse folks. My thoughts from about the middle of the season have been that the Roadhouse convos allude to the existence of the cheeesy soap opera elements in Twin Peaks without actually having to show them.
Re: Jerry. Jerry was comic relief. How he got to Montana is less important than the fact that when the police found him he was naked, IMO.
Re: Sense of order. No. Ever read the Beats? Surrealist authors? Watched Christopher Nolan films, etc?
I'll add more later as well.
Re: Roadhouse folks. My thoughts from about the middle of the season have been that the Roadhouse convos allude to the existence of the cheeesy soap opera elements in Twin Peaks without actually having to show them.
Also compare with the female chorus in Inland Empire. They're there for theme, not plot.
I don't agree at all, I feel like the creator of the world has a responsibility to the characters of that world, to the world itself and especially to those who are viewing in the world. Anything less is a chaotic cop out...you can just do whatever you want whenever you want because you created the world. Small and very unrewarding to all..
If you don't owe us anything, you can do everything with no repurcussions.
Sorry, Jack, don't agree with anything you wrote in the slightest. But, I do find it interesting how personally offended you are by Lynch and Frosts's vision and execution.
To each their own. It's largely a matter of taste, and I can see how the season could be a let down, even though it certainly matched my taste.
I'll add one more point to consider for now:
This is surrealism!
The script goes so far as to tell us straight from David Lynch's mouth. The genre includes straightup dreaming. In dreams, characters come in and out of the picture; you get to new places/people/scenarios before you realize that the prior have passed and won't return. (Or, I imagine most dreams are like my dreams.) The Roadhouse--whose climax features Audrey dancing to the music she once called "too dreamy"--seems particularly devoted to the dream aspect of the show this season. I think that's partly "WHY," hehe.
Yeah there is a lot to that personal offense from Lynch (mostly) and Frost. I guess I am looking at it from a different perspective, the one where the writer owes his characters and his audience some personal responsibility. It's not like I was watching South Parks episode of "Imaginationland" because then I personally signed up for the outcome. I was watching episodes of a story that had 31 previous episodes to build and divine from. Talk about going back and changing the past...
Jack, I agree....but then I don't agree. It seems like us saying an artist has a responsibility to us is as narcissistic as a writer saying he/she has no responsibility to us and we owe them our eternal gratitude and acceptance for whatever they do. Who is right or wrong. Perhaps artists Penny have a responsibility to themselves and we can take it or leave it.
I go back and forth on this and I just hope Lynch and Frost aren't laughing at us all from their twitter accounts while they cash their fat checks.
I don't really understand the confusion I guess.
I took all of the "extra characters" to be a very spelled out thing once the finale aired.
the audrey that we are seeing, all of the people she is talking about, all of the people talking ABOUT billy and that circle of people around him. That is all happening in the "Laura didn't die" timeline that was established in the finale, we're just seeing it out of order. that is the time line in which "laura" is in texas, in which the Fat Trout Trailer park is in Twin Peaks (again a bunch of characters that seem to not connect to the core and have no interactions outside of people that exist in the RR diner - which DOES exist in the alternate time line, but wasn't franchised out). The Roadhouse also exists in both, but are in habited by different people. The scene where the guy comes into the diner asking for Billy and then everyone's position where they are sitting shifts is the big giveaway here. Shelly exists in both time lines with a very similar story, and that is why she is used as the anchor - also one of the few characters that shows up in both timelines which muddles it. same with Bobby. Bobby is able to grab the bloody drunk guy and toss him in the jail. However james and british guy don't seem to NOTICE drunk bloody guy (billy). they are focused on Naido. they never really interact with drunk guy.
Audrey doing her dance and coming out of it in a moment of horror is pretty much RIGHT in line with Laura coming out of it at the house.
These concepts are kind of touched on briefly in the Final Dossier book when Tammy realizes Laura merely went MISSING and didn't die.
The idea of the same "people" existing but in a kind of jumbled reality that isn't quite right is touched on by Richard and Linda and what happened to Laura (again under a different name) and also the infamous Floor Sweeping scene - the actor playing the bartender is very important.
Interesting...
James, too, seems like he is in multiple timelines...and that would imply that maybe when he sings his song, it's actually the first time that he sang it in that timeline?
just re-watched the first episode of the return again last night. in the roadhouse scene the bartenders change. there are two younger bartenders at one point. there is another shot where we see james looking at Shelly (and when Red is pointing at Shelly) where we have bizarro Renault.
I don't really understand the confusion I guess.
I took all of the "extra characters" to be a very spelled out thing once the finale aired.
the audrey that we are seeing, all of the people she is talking about, all of the people talking ABOUT billy and that circle of people around him. That is all happening in the "Laura didn't die" timeline that was established in the finale, we're just seeing it out of order. that is the time line in which "laura" is in texas, in which the Fat Trout Trailer park is in Twin Peaks (again a bunch of characters that seem to not connect to the core and have no interactions outside of people that exist in the RR diner - which DOES exist in the alternate time line, but wasn't franchised out). The Roadhouse also exists in both, but are in habited by different people. The scene where the guy comes into the diner asking for Billy and then everyone's position where they are sitting shifts is the big giveaway here. Shelly exists in both time lines with a very similar story, and that is why she is used as the anchor - also one of the few characters that shows up in both timelines which muddles it. same with Bobby. Bobby is able to grab the bloody drunk guy and toss him in the jail. However james and british guy don't seem to NOTICE drunk bloody guy (billy). they are focused on Naido. they never really interact with drunk guy.
Audrey doing her dance and coming out of it in a moment of horror is pretty much RIGHT in line with Laura coming out of it at the house.
These concepts are kind of touched on briefly in the Final Dossier book when Tammy realizes Laura merely went MISSING and didn't die.
The idea of the same "people" existing but in a kind of jumbled reality that isn't quite right is touched on by Richard and Linda and what happened to Laura (again under a different name) and also the infamous Floor Sweeping scene - the actor playing the bartender is very important.
Woah! I haven't heard this theory yet. Do you have a link off the top of your head to a full explanation? (Or should I just go get that Final Dossier?.... I've been so scared of getting Frosty and losing the Lynch.) Anyway, thanks for introducing this. I'll do some googling/reading at some point.
If you dig deep every character has a purpose. I couldn't get my head around Stephen until recently:
America's Gun & Drug Epidemic in Twin Peaks The Return - YouTube
Fire walk with