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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.