Skip to main content

Cooper, you remind me today of a small, Mexican Chihuahua.

Twin Peaks
2.6: Demons

David Lynch starred in five episodes of Twin Peaks and directed six. Would that he had ditched the acting gig altogether, swapping it for his appearances for megaphone duties. Gordon Cole is a likeable but one-joke character, a pratfall when set against the rapier wit of Albert, whom he ostensibly replaces. 2.6 is merely so-so, following the trend of the previous few episodes, but it does come together for the final scene in which, yes, Mike finally, and after much running on the spot, makes his presence felt.


Harold Smith: You lie, and then you betray, and then you laugh about it. You are unclean, contaminated.

Before that, however, we have to contend with yet more of Harold Smith. Fortunately for us all, this is his final appearance in the show. Harold will endure an off screen suicide between this and 2.7. Yay us.


His meltdown in the opening scene is laughable, and it’s a testament to how useless Donna is that she singularly fails to claim the diary even when dozy James turns up to help.


Meanwhile, Maddy, in her penultimate living appearance, gets to go slightly meta as she says farewell to James. “For a while I got to be somebody different, but now I’m just me again”. Back to being Laura? Which means she must surely die.


Pete: Do you like musicals?
Mr Tojamura: No.
Pete: Not even Fiddler on the Roof?

Director Leslie Linka Glatter adds some winning humorous touches, even into some of the more pedestrian subplots. Particularly amusing is the exchange between Pete and his Asian husband; Fiddler on the Roof is the classic musical to like for those don’t like musicals.


There’s also a lovely moment where Leland comes back to work for Ben and is distracted by a stuffed fox staring into the back of his head, before firing off a series of red tape manoeuvres. Ben’s delight at this legal acumen is unbridled; he’s less pleased later when Leland launches into Getting to Know You in the bar. The fox bit not only works as a sight gag, it becomes a crucial clue later, as Leland puts some of its hair in his pocket.


There’s a cute exchange between Ben and Josie when both counter-threaten the other with the dirt they hold. The mention of the fascinating dossier he holds on her late husband’s boat that went boom is a reminder that David Warner will be making a welcome appearance in a few episodes time.


This is a good episode for Richard Beymer, who not only has attention rather crudely shifted towards him as a murder suspect (more on that in 2.7) but is reunited with his beloved daughter. The manner in which Ben oozes insincerity and hugs Coop, who would clearly rather be anywhere else, is marvellous. It’s then topped as he exits with the suitcase full of returned cash clutched lovingly to his bosom.


Harry: You’re the best lawman I’ve ever seen, but sometimes, you think too much.

Audrey is full of threatening intimations towards her father (“I saw SO much”) but won’t be back on proper form until next week. She sings the praises of Coop (“I prayed, I prayed that you would come”), who is filled with remorse for his actions (“I violated my professional code, and now Audrey is paying the price”). Fortunately, Harry is on hand to speak some good earthy rustic sense to him; Coop’s self-recriminations are rather overdone, and it’s a sign that even the captain can lose his touch if the boat isn’t kept moving.


Gordon Cole: Cooper, you remind me today of a small, Mexican Chihuahua.

Gordon Cole delivers a couple of good lines amid Lynch's frantic mugging, his cryptic comparison of Coop to a dog (he never divulges why) and recognition of the arrival of Gerard (“There’s the one-armer now!”) is a more endearing stating of the bleeding obvious than his quickly-becoming-tiresome repetition of what the previous person said deafness. Of course, Cole also brings tidings of Windom Earle, poised to become the show’s next big bad (“P to K-4”).


Shelly: This is too creepy.

I continue to be impressed by Eric de Rae, since Leo as other than a brute rather passed me by previously. There’s something rather genius about his minimalist performance, playing the long game for laughs by just sitting there. Inevitably, Bobby’s scheme for insurance money turns sour when he and Shelly get a fraction of what’s expected. They still throw a coming home party, however, complete with Leo blowing a kazoo and toppling face first into his cake. Bobby has very much gotten over his flirtation with being a decent guy, making out with Shelly in front of Leo and too late claiming he “doesn’t want to exploit him or anything”.


Agent Cooper: Who are you?
Philip Gerard: My name is Mike.
Agent Cooper: What are you?
Philip Gerard: I am an inhabiting spirit.

The scenes with Mike don’t add much to what we already know, and knew since the European pilot, but they areatmospheric, and set the tone for the high drama of the next episode. Al Strobel is great, inhabiting the heightened language of Mike with eerie calm. There is enough avoidance to keep things mysterious; Bob was Mike’s familiar, but “That cannot be revealed” is the response when Coop asks where Bob came from. Some of the language too, has the tenor of a twisted nursery rhyme.


Agent Cooper: What does Bob want?
Philip Gerard: He is Bob, eager for fun. He wants a soul. Everybody run.

We learn that Bob is a parasite who requires a human host; he feeds on fear and the pleasures. They are his children. Particularly effective is Mike and Coop repeating the “Fire Walk With Me” verse in incantatory unison, and the revelation that Bob has been with them in Twin Peaks for nearly 40 years. Mike then describes what can only be the Great Northern Hotel as his current location (where, of course, we have seen Leland singing in the lounge, even though the proprietor is Ben Horne).


2.6 represents a slight uptick on its predecessors, thanks to the concluding sequence, but the leap next week is marked. Glatter effectively imbues the final scene with an atmosphere of expectancy but it’s clear Lynch is at the helm as soon as 2.7 opens, marbling the screen with queasy dread.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.