Drink full: The TWIN PEAKS 2017 spoiler thread, part 2

How quickly we forget Augustus and Ruth Johnson of the Johnson Tuna dynasty, who summered in Twin Peaks with their wayward son Leonard and perished under mysterious circumstances.

i wonder how close jerry is to jack rabbit's palace?

Yeah, no doubt Richard's been a d-bag for a while but I have a hard time believing he could even set foot in public if his average week includes the public molestation and casual slaughter of the town's residents.

I feel like Cole seeing Laura was foreshadowing his death :/

That's certainly what I thought was happening for a moment until his vision cleared.

Oh man if mr c murders gordon

stop fucking with my emotions, wins!

dynamicinterface, that occurred to me too.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE86e3WXoAEn9Tn.jpg:large

the repetition of "douglas" made me think of lynch's speech at the premiere in may

“I like trees and I love wood. I like to cut wood. Tonight, we’re going to a place where the trees are primarily Douglas firs.

Douglas firs are a beautiful tree and if we’re very quiet, we can hear the wind rustling the needles as we move through the forest, getting closer and closer. And now, we’re here.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the world of Twin Peaks!”

My take on Richard is that he was always a bad seed, but the Balthazar Getty super drugs turned him into a rampaging psycho.

That is probably an accurate take.

paused and tried to see who bad cooper was talking to by the big glass box in the photo, but i couldn't tell who it was. it looked like a bald (?) guy with glasses (?) in a trenchcoat (?) in the foreground and someone else behind him

It looked like Dr Bunsen Honeydew.

I don't buy that Red is manufacturing super drugs. Seems like Richard is just a psycho high on coke.

This episode felt like a regression. Agree that it was treading water and reiterating a lot of things we know. The Richard Horne stuff just makes me not to watch anymore. I actually appreciated the trailer scene, where his killing is done off camera and you are left to imagine. The scene with his grandmother just felt unnecessary and cruel/sadistic. Kind of felt it deserved a trigger warning for the language too.

it def turned my wife off.

imo they cut whatever the drugs are supposed to be with garmonbozia

also:

pic.twitter.com/Fqpof2NSuw

— david binch (@apepsibath) July 16, 2017

I thought this episode had lots of great stuff in it and I love the series but I totally understand that reaction to the Richard scene. Particularly with Johnny tied up, very brutal.

unfortunately unrelated https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/16/poundland-delays-launch-of-twin-peaks-chocolate-bar-amid-legal-row

i wish there was a injunction against the breastaurant

Visceral, raging brutality is often present throughout Lynch's work. Why would this surprise anyone?

there's a difference between surprise and disgust

It was a tad fucked that Richard was strangling his grandmother's throat as she was giving him the combo for the safe. I suppose that's Lynch establishing he's full out psycho, but I dunno, felt forced?

(xpost) I get that. But you don't sit and watch a Lynch feature not expecting to be occasionally disgusted. Except for maybe "The Straight Story".

felt...forced

By that token Frank Booth's extended apartment attack on Dorothy Valens is forced as well. This is a Lynch trademark and doesn't feel out of the norm for me as a viewer.

Yeah, I agree with you Jay Vee. That's his shtick

It's horrible to watch that's for sure.

Did Johnny's nightmare bear continue to speak through that entire scene?

But it does reinforce how pathetic Richard is - he's not so much a bad ass as a real piss-ant who takes advantage of those who can't defend themselves.

Yeah the bear continued to speak, which makes the scene way more intense

In re the violence, it is disturbing and has always left Lynch open to fair criticism, particularly his portrayals of violence against women. I think the defense of it is that his violence is shocking the way real violence in the world is shocking. It disrupts all the surfaces of social contracts and norms and reveals rawer instincts below. (Lynch of course very into revealing things that lurk below.) So I think there's more to its persistence in his work than exploitation, it's one of the facets of nature -- human and otherwise -- that he is drawn to.

Both

1) the shot of Richard Horne reflected in the glass door, so his face is embedded in Miriam's chest; and
2) "you have an enemy IN Douglas Jones"

seem references to Bob lodged in (and dug out of?) BadCoop's chest or just more generally the fact that one being can inhabit another

I wouldn't say it wasn't artistically unjustifiable, given the dichotomy/polarities of decency and evil he's setting up but the prolonged assault with the mentally disabled adult she cares for watching and afraid...I think we can understand why some viewers even familiar w and fans of Lynch's aesthetics would be hopeful not to see something like that again.

yeah tipsy OTM

and again, it's normal to like a director like Lynch and also find fault or dislike some of his storytelling (and even hold out hope his approach changes)

meeting complaints with "well it's David Lynch, what'd you expect?" is kind of useless when someone does expect the violence but holds out hope it's approached differently

it's not by any means a deal breaker for me and there are a million things in his work that appeal versus the handful I wish were different but not to the extent I walk away

It felt a bit more like this was about violence against women, rather than being exploitative (i do think the criticisms he faces on that front are generally justified)

i paused and tried to see who bad cooper was talking to by the big glass box in the photo, but i couldn't tell who it was. it looked like a bald (?) guy with glasses (?) in a trenchcoat (?) in the foreground and someone else behind him

― na (NA), Monday, July 17, 2017 3:13 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/wpid-article-1317296589811-0e24b9d000000578-503975_636x338.jpg

I wasn't particularly shocked or repulsed by it. I was, however, pretty repulsed and disappointed in the hit and run on the child a few episodes ago.

I was more shocked when he called her a cunt as le left.

I have some half-formed thought in my head about the intensity of that scene feeling more oppressive than it might've because Johnny was essentially a proxy for the viewer, watching it all unfold and incapable of doing anything to prevent it.

I had the same thought, Old Lunch. It kind of makes it even worse that I just kept willing Johnny to somehow break free and assault Richard -- really, it should have been about protecting his mom, not being violent to Richard in return

making viewers want something horrible and violent to happen to this horrible fictional man is a conscious thing

Imagine if that scene were actually filmed with the camera on its side, as one unbroken shot from his perspective. Like that horrific scene from Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Eeesh.

xpost way upthread to mh -- Must be a generatiional thing (I'm in my late '40s) but I kind of let creative folks I deeply admire "do their thing", even if I am disappointed by approaches they may eventually take in their art, and never hope they will change those approaches in order to meet my needs. That would be worse in my eyes.

I think the man sitting opposite bad Cooper is wearing a lab coat rather than a trench coat.

Richard Horne's face seems kind of distorted and weird, like a Picasso face -- did they somehow distort or prosthetize him or is that just what the actor actually looks like?

interesting point from an online commenter"

"Big takeaway: Chad pocketed the letter from Miriam Hodges, yet Miriam's last name is actually Sullivan as seen in the credits. So he got the wrong letter and the real one will still make it to the TPSD."

Yeah, i wonder how Richard expects to flee with such a face? Surely he'd be identified in no time.

xxp "creative folks" change their approaches all the time, during their lives, not just responding to critical reviews but the changing social climate, their own maturity, and their own experiences

I don't want my needs met. I just think certain changes would be nice. Also, I'm not one to hold Lynch to this, and I'm personally relatively fine with the level of violence. I'm articulating why criticizing reviewers for having their opinions is a slippery slope

xpost I have a feeling Lynch just picked some weird looking folks for this. Amanda Seyfried's bf (can't remember the character name) is one inbred, devilish looking mf'er.

xpost way upthread to mh -- Must be a generatiional thing (I'm in my late '40s) but I kind of let creative folks I deeply admire "do their thing", even if I am disappointed by approaches they may eventually take in their art, and never hope they will change those approaches in order to meet my needs. That would be worse in my eyes.

― Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Monday, July 17, 2017 2:10 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I can agree with that. I may enjoy the work of an artist who always gives me exactly what I want and whose work always mirrors my own view of the world but they aren't going to be an artist that I engage with particularly deeply.

Can't decide if I like the official Twin Peaks twitter account (which is pretty deep spoiler-y) or not. Their latest tweet spells out a lot that most of us probably missed.