laughing appreciatively, of course
― wizzz! (amateurist), Saturday, 30 April 2016 00:35 (ten years ago)
otm
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 30 April 2016 00:39 (ten years ago)
Yes, absolutely. The bank scene in the final episode of TP totally gets me on that level.
― Your Ass Is Grass And I Will Mow It With My Face (Old Lunch), Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:32 (ten years ago)
So I rewatched FWWM after the sincere adoration it's gotten here and... my opinion remains unchanged. Just feels so plodding and uninspired. Lynch going through the motions. Never captures the ecstatic melodramatic heights or creeping terror in the best moments of the series. Suffers from the classic prequel problem of giving you information that's way more compelling in the imagination. Laura Palmer is better as a corpse. You spend the majority of the time with her and she's not very interesting.
"it just seems pretty consistently inventive in its editing/soundtrack/staging/etc."
This is such a weird opinion to me! It easily feels like his LEAST inventive film in those departments.
Wish I could see it through different eyes. Remains lower tier Lynch for me.
― circa1916, Saturday, 30 April 2016 01:43 (ten years ago)
"Laura Palmer is better as a corpse"
no!
one thing that I liked about it is that Laura was actually quite different in FWWM than I'd pictured her from the series. She was much more multidimensional.
― akm, Saturday, 30 April 2016 05:45 (ten years ago)
fwwm is one of the most harrowing depictions of domestic abuse on film
― HYPERLINK TO RAP GENIUS (BradNelson), Saturday, 30 April 2016 05:52 (ten years ago)
FWWM is a complete ret-con of the TV show, making the implicit explicit
― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, April 29, 2016 9:42 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
yep. The fact that it's telling you things you already know is the point! The uninspired, obvious thing to do would have been to make a film that followed cooper and the townspeople, wrapping up all the cliffhangers from the end of the series. I think that's what people were expecting. Instead, lynch gives us a sour parody of twin peaks for half an hour before spending the rest of the film rubbing our faces in everything the series shrinks back from after lynch leaves (the disappearing of ronette and maddy as mentioned above, the glossing over of leland's actions). It completely ignores sheriff truman et al in favour of really delving into the effects of years of systematic rape and incest in a way that the series never does even at its most disturbing. You don't have to like it, but "we already know who the killer is!" is a seriously dumb criticism imo
― dat login (wins), Saturday, 30 April 2016 07:53 (ten years ago)
Feel like I saw a completely different movie.
I'll take the early 90s view. Wild at Heart winning the Palme, FWWM getting gutted.
― circa1916, Saturday, 30 April 2016 07:58 (ten years ago)
haha getting booed at cannes + tarantino hating it = no higher recommendation for me
― dat login (wins), Saturday, 30 April 2016 08:00 (ten years ago)
I don't think that was the extent of it.
― circa1916, Saturday, 30 April 2016 08:05 (ten years ago)
Yeah, I dunno. I'm legitimately jealous of everyone getting so much out of it. I WANT it do something, but it falls so flat for me.
― circa1916, Saturday, 30 April 2016 08:14 (ten years ago)
oh I know, I'm given to understand that everybody hated it back in the day except david foster wallace xp
― dat login (wins), Saturday, 30 April 2016 08:15 (ten years ago)
There's so many thrilling moments. I don't recall much like that in the first season of Twin Peaks (which I liked but don't remember any really juicy bits).
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Saturday, 30 April 2016 12:10 (ten years ago)
the film takes a lot of its cues from the "secret diary" that lynch's daughter (!) wrote and published in between the two seasons
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 1 May 2016 04:34 (ten years ago)
since i was around in 1992 and was an O.G. twin peaks fan it might be helpful to note that TP:FWWM pointedly did not give the show's hardcore fans (however many were left at that point) what they wanted. in fact, i recall people being at best disappointed and at most downright upset that the film chose to cover a period /before/ the timeline of the TV show rather than pick up where the final episode left off. rather than "resolve" the various narrative strands left dangling at the end of the series, the film only makes glancing reference to some of them.
one thing i've never been sure of (and lynch in interviews has been a bit contradictory about this) is whether the incest/abuse theme was present from the beginning of the show's conception or whether it was "discovered" in the course of making the series. so i'm not sure if the film can be said to represent lynch's attempt to return to (and make more explicit) his original conception of the show's themes, or if it is more of an attempt to inscribe (?) those themes into the twin peaks mythos by re-visiting events that we thought we knew well. (not that the show ever depicted the last days of laura palmer per se, but much of the show involves the gradual revealing of what happened during those days.)
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 1 May 2016 04:39 (ten years ago)
one thing i find interesting about the film is its totally non-classical structure-- how it follows the two FBI agents for about 40 minutes, has that weird interlude w/ bowie etc., then effectively starts over again as a new narrative. this looks forward to some of the narrative games in lynch's subsequent films, i think.
also, the first episode -- the one with the two FBI agents-- is a pseudo-remake of much of the pilot, the doppelganger of agent cooper's arrival in twin peaks, his encounters with the local police, etc. the various encounters there mirror scenes from the pilot, in a mordant, bitter mode.
i can't help but be impressed by the perversity of all of this. it's a very, very strange way to go about making a feature-length "sequel" to a beloved TV series.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 1 May 2016 04:45 (ten years ago)
and yeah it's far, far from perfect. but while in 1992 TP:FWWM was greeted as Lynch's nadir, evidence that he needed a rest, in retrospect I think it's the beginning of his bouncing back from the dead-end mannerism of Wild at Heart (even if some of the pervasive adolescent humor of the latter remains in FWWM and Lost Highway.)
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 1 May 2016 04:47 (ten years ago)
mj anderson reprised his twin peaks role in scooby doo 3 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97AKy7mViBg
― remove butt (abanana), Tuesday, 3 May 2016 08:21 (ten years ago)
I guess that's the episode order confirmed, then (if it wasn't already)
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13256490_10100821897967885_5583536082578583416_n.jpg?oh=b4b6c61cb79755eb599d8b602ccf0a3d&oe=57D06AB8
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 00:22 (ten years ago)
Great poster.
― CRANK IT YA FILTHY BISM! (jed_), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 00:34 (ten years ago)
Yeah, that's really cool!
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 07:06 (ten years ago)
fan made poster apparently
― circa1916, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:21 (ten years ago)
Very nice, nonetheless.
I don't know why it's only just occurred to me that the revival's presence on Showtime allows for much stronger content than we got on the original show. Although it seems like he wouldn't even be able to get away with Maddie's murder on the network TV of today.
― Wet Food (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:29 (ten years ago)
love that poster
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:33 (ten years ago)
xpost
you can get away with /much/ worse on contemporary network TV than you could in 1991!
― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:36 (ten years ago)
I know you can in terms of content (gore or sex or whatevs) but I have a hard time imagining something that legit terrifying on, say, ABC today.
― Wet Food (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:41 (ten years ago)
I've never seen anything on network TV surpass Maddie's murder in terms of pure horror
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:43 (ten years ago)
well it's terrifying b/c lynch is just so good at terrifying. but i've seen stuff that /strives/ to be just as graphic and visceral on network TV.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:44 (ten years ago)
yeah a lot of it has to do with context and the framing and the way it's shot, obviously it's not particularly gory or sexy
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 15:44 (ten years ago)
lol def thought that was an official poster, if it's not it should be
― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:14 (ten years ago)
would be perfect without the "25 years later"
― le Histoire du Edgy Miley (difficult listening hour), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 16:34 (ten years ago)
why is the poster upside down? aside from trying hard to look arty.
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 22:32 (ten years ago)
yeah i actually think that poster kind of bites tbh
― the unbearable jimmy smits (jim in glasgow), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 22:33 (ten years ago)
fan made tho so whatevs
On what you can do on networks today: Hannibal was a network show for three seasons...
― Frederik B, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 22:35 (ten years ago)
Lynch's horror isn't based on gore or standard violence, his most effectively terrifying moments have little to no gore. Think the man behind the cafe. Or Bob peering over the edge of the bed. Or evil Laura screaming/shrieking in that final episode.
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 22:37 (ten years ago)
monster faced Laura Dern at the end of Inland Empire still haunts me and that's just some dumb video composite
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 22:38 (ten years ago)
Aside from general consideration of it all after watching fwwm this week ive also realised that this may be the most incredible looking cast ever assembled
― Daithi Bowsie (darraghmac), Wednesday, 25 May 2016 23:26 (ten years ago)
― Number None, Thursday, 26 May 2016 07:06 (ten years ago)
Straight-up looking forward to this. That poster just doesn't seem right - doesn't feel pulled together.
― Elvis Telecom, Thursday, 26 May 2016 11:07 (ten years ago)
http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkhMlcTE7lw8&start1=&video2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6laGvKtPZYQ&start2=&authorName=saalow
― 龜, Saturday, 25 June 2016 14:27 (nine years ago)
I'm rewatching and noticed BOB in the background of the episode where Audrey is back from One-Eyed Jack's. Creepy!
― Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 04:11 (nine years ago)
https://66.media.tumblr.com/925262b81f9dda330ed9a3217bdadbd1/tumblr_oazi5gFWdE1qbypg1o1_540.png
― Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:35 (nine years ago)
oh no way, never noticed that before
― ælərdaɪs (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:35 (nine years ago)
Whoa, that's an amazing catch.
― Night Jorts (Old Lunch), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:39 (nine years ago)
that's... not Bob?
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:47 (nine years ago)
Bob wears a denim jacket
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:48 (nine years ago)
The second scene with Audrey at the Great Northern, from the same episode:
https://67.media.tumblr.com/9d4ee3b5bf7ff5907d3feecaff133e83/tumblr_oazi5gFWdE1qbypg1o2_540.png
Looks less like BOB there.
But anyway, in both of her scenes from the episode, someone lurks out of focus in the background and whom nobody interacts with, so denim jacket or no...
And this is the same episode where MIKE says that BOB is currently at the Great Northern!
― Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:53 (nine years ago)
looks like a girl to me - also that scene's not at the Great Northern iirc? and MIKE is referring to Leland meeting with Ben Horne.
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:54 (nine years ago)
I thought Dale brought Audrey back to the GN after the One-Eyed Jacks rescue? I mean, in the scene with Ben, they're talking about taking her home, so she isn't recovering at home.
― Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Wednesday, 27 July 2016 17:57 (nine years ago)