Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Vee   

I don't agree with all of this Matt Zoller Seitz piece, but I think it's mostly right on, and right on about Lynch: He does not give a fúck about audience/critical expectation and this will be wild.

 

From the piece, and important:

 

6. You never know why David Lynch does certain things, and he either can’t or won’t explain why he does them.

 

This is the most exciting bullet point for me. I can’t wait to see the new Peaks throw a wrench into the internet’s content machine, much of which is driven by fan theories, charts, “explainers,” and editorials about why this or that is problematic and what X gets wrong about Y.

 

Quite by accident, Lynch, a filmmaker known for his cryptic, sometimes cranky deflections of “What does this mean?”–type questions, is about to embark on a trolling expedition through the most tediously literal-minded era of film and TV fandom — a period in which social-media users and media outlets (including this one) fall over themselves to parse the microscopic details of mythology-rich shows, and producers participate in “exit interviews” and electronic press-kit sit-downs, live tweets and liveblogs, Facebook videos, and Reddit AMAs.

We might see Lynch do a few of those as part of his contractual obligation to promote the show. But I’d be shocked if he treated them as anything other than inadvertent meta-commentary on the uselessness of treating a David Lynch project as if it were a season of Game of Thrones or House of Cards.

 

Don’t expect him to validate anyone’s attempt to turn an essentially left-brained work of art into a right-brained one that can be solved for “X” like an algebra problem. Do expect him to give flippant or terse answers and smoke a lot.

 

[...]

 

As a Lynch-crazed buddy of mine said last week, “Everybody thinks they’re ready for more David Lynch, but are they ready for pure, uncut, post–Mulholland Drive, mind-[!@#$%^&*], T.S. Eliot-I-will-show-you-fear-in-a-handful-of-dust David Lynch?”

 

Maybe he won’t give us that because he knows most of us can’t handle it.

 

But I bet he will.

 

Somehow, despite not having made a hit film in over 30 years, Lynch convinced a major entertainment conglomerate to pay for 18 hours of new material by David Lynch, at the budget he needed, and with complete creative control. He hasn’t had this kind of financial support since he made Dune in 1984.

 

Nothing like this has ever happened before — not with an American artist as uncompromising and instinctual and fundamentally unknowable as Lynch, and certainly not at a point in the artist’s career where he’s traveled further away from the commercial beaten path than any director of comparable stature.

 

To imagine a similarly unlikely development, you have to envision, say, Starz giving Terrence Malick the budget for an 18-hour series after releasing To the Wonder and Knight of Cups.

Only the brand recognition conjured by the words Twin and Peaks made this scenario possible.

 

But if you believe Lynch is going to give us a conventional, commercially viable Lynch Lite alternative at this stage of his long, strange career, you must have missed his campaign to get an Oscar nomination for Laura Dern’s Inland Empire performance. He sat in a chair at the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and LaBrea next to a live cow. Behind him was a “For Your Consideration” poster. Nearby was a second poster that read, “Without cheese, there wouldn’t be Inland Empire.”

 

When somebody asked Lynch what he meant by that, he replied, “Cheese is made from milk. Get it?”

 

I don’t, and I want more.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   
Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

MEMf2LM.jpg

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

 

 

 

 

Price Peterson from Yahoo reviews the new show (spoiler-free, after a few light things were scrubbed from the earlier version of the piece) - he digs it. 

 

Mashable on the premiere.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy [!@#$%^&*]! Dana Ashbrook looks so good still.

 

I cannot wait to see him as Bobby again. :D

 

Less than 26 hours. I'm having heart palpitations. LOL. I cannot wait for tomorrow night.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

Holy shït.

 

Twin Peaks is still way, way ahead of anything else on television.

 

Eat that, Leftovers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

Some of the first reviews: NYT's is decent if guarded, but waffles on calling it good enough yet. It's also wrong on one story point: James is

 

making eyes at Gia Carides' Hannah, Shelly's friend, not Shelly herself. Shelly was sharing looks with Balthazar Getty's character at the bar.

 

Michael Ausiello hates it and is very upset.

 

THR admits it is impossible to review.

 

Quote

The Fuller House brand of nostalgia is something along the lines of, "Look at how pretty and perky our characters are 15 years later and how precisely honed our comedic craft remains," but Lynch's brand of nostalgia is always more mixed up with a melancholic reflection on the past and loss. 25 years passing is a lot of time, and Lynch wants us to be shocked or moved when somebody has changed, whether it's a new beard as a signifier for a character in a new line of work or weight packed onto a formerly gangly character as evidence of domesticity. There's a reason so many of the original Twin Peaks cast members — so many of Lynch's favorite movie performers, too — were actors with recognizable credits from years before. Lynch grooves on taking the familiar and sanding it down, eroding it, weathering it. Lynch also wants us to marvel when somebody hasn't changed at all, as with Mädchen Amick's Shelly. And he wants us to reflect on death, a mourning process that is organic whenever you return to the land of Laura Palmer, and which is unavoidable given how many cast members have passed since the original series and even since production began on the reboot.

 

Familiarity also brings humor. I can't imagine audiences knowing how to respond to Richard Beymer and David Patrick Kelly as Benjamin and Jerry Horne if they haven't watched previous episodes, but hearing their fraternal rhythms unchanged is funny. Lucy (Kimmy Robertson) gets at least one laugh from a line that's a direct callback to the series, and others just because we know Lucy. Chuckles otherwise come from expected Lynchian disconnects, like the woman more concerned about her dinner party than her husband being charged with murder. I laughed a lot at these first two hours, a nice relief after Fire Walk With Me, which had too much misery on its mind to make room for mirth. I like my Lynch to include uncomfortable amusement.

 

TV is a quirkier place now than when Twin Peaks first premiered. Audiences are more accustomed to fits of surrealism and untrustworthy subjectivity in shows like Westworld or Mr. Robot or Fargo or The Leftovers. It would have been fair to wonder if Twin Peaks might look quaint in 2017. The most significant thing I can say by way of review when it comes to the start of Showtime's new Twin Peaks isn't really whether it's good or bad, because I'm not there yet and the show's past has taught me to be cautious. I also have a hard time reviewing things like performances, both because there are so many people who appear so fleetingly in these opening episodes and also because acting for David Lynch is such a peculiar thing, down to blinks and tilts of the head. The question, then, is whether Showtime's Twin Peaks feels of a piece and whether it works. For the most part, so far it does.

 

 

Deadline says Lynch has schooled TV again.

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DRW50   

I see people in that TV Line article going on and on about some blind item it matches about a show that wouldn't be any good. Do you think that's it? I'd think Showtime is giving it a fair amount of hype for a show that they don't think is any good.

 

It sounds to me like there's all kinds of personal baggage in the review. Seeing him talk about how he BEGGED Frost to make sure the show goes a certain way is never a good start. Maybe he would have been better off not watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   
20 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I see people in that TV Line article going on and on about some blind item it matches about a show that wouldn't be any good. Do you think that's it? I'd think Showtime is giving it a fair amount of hype for a show that they don't think is any good.

 

No, Showtime is behind it. That BI is on a show on ABC - some overpriced Romeo and Juliet sequel series shot in Europe which Shonda Rhimes backed.

 

Ausiello says he hates S2 and FWWM, so I've written him off.

 

Todd VanDerWerff raves on Vox.

 

tumblr_oqc4lsgDWn1rcjlpyo1_540.gif

tumblr_oqc4lsgDWn1rcjlpyo2_540.gif

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YRBB   

Wow. I've only done the first two episodes so far. I'll try to hold off on the other two.

 

At the same time, it's familiar, and yet so very different.

 

Already two episodes in, some pieces are starting to fit together. I am really loving the evil doppelganger storyline.

 

That song at the end of episode 2 was so beautiful and fit in so well. I nearly cried when Shelly said, "James has always been cool." What an unexpected scene to end on.

Edited by YRBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

I'm taking a few hours to read fan reactions and talk to people before doing the other two. I'll be rewatching these all week.

 

And yeah, the bit about James was satisfying - and I think a defiant stance by Lynch/Frost to fans who pick him as an easy target. James takes a lot of abuse for Marshall's, uh, raw performance and some lousy story turns, but I liked him in FWWM and when Lynch and the show used him well. Liked him here too. I am very curious to see what's become of that lonely boy years later. I also suspect the cute Brit with him (Jake Wardle, playing Freddie Sykes) may be intended for Shelly's daughter Becky

Edited by Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vee   

That was either

Ronette Pulaski or someone who looked a lot like her played by the same actress

in the chamber where Cooper escaped. What a world!

 

Same actress, though not credited as Ronette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×