Skip to main content

Heaven is a large and interesting place, sir.

Twin Peaks
2.4: Laura’s Secret Diary

Todd Holland, who would mostly go on to comedy work (including The Larry Sanders Show and short-lived Wonderfalls), starts this episode in a highly Lynchian manner, with a macro-shot pulling out of a ceiling tile. It’s a move that promises the unattainable, as rather too much in the way of humdrum plot mechanics will follow.


Four writers are credited on 2.4, suggesting some fairly extensive surgery and overhauling were required to get it in workable shape. As with the previous episode, overly soapy elements arise without a sufficient spin to allow them to operate successfully inPeaks land.


There’s the mistaken identity with Hank and Norma and the travel writer/restaurant critic (he’s actually the D.A.) There’s the return of Josie, whom Harry desperately wants to believe is innocent, the big lug (he also gets down to some hot and steamy dress-tearing rump with her).


There’s also the return of Catherine, buried in a ‘90s equivalent of yellow face make-up as Mr Tojamura. A character coming back in disguise is as potty as a dead character coming back as a twin sibling. If there was any fun to be had with this plotline it might get a vague pass, but its not only dubious in conception, the idea that no one would see through it in about five seconds flat is absurd. Josie’s associate Jonathan (Mak Takano), who has been staring at Coop over a newspaper for several weeks, finally gets to speak and have a fight with Hank, but it wasn’t worth the wait.


Harold Smith is as highly strung as previously, and there’s nothing in his scenes to make them sufferable. Not his desire to create “a sort of living novel” from those he knows, or Donna’s quest to get hold of Laura’s diary.


Lucy: He never exercises, he never washes his car, and he doesn’t even own a sports coat.

Andy and Lucy are provided a series of wank gags, as he is caught with a copy of Flesh World en route to muster up a sperm sample. Later Andy loses the bottle behind a chair in the waiting room. This material is well played, but in the service of a filler subplot.


Richard/Dick features too, of course, offering to pay for Lucy’s abortion. Lucy’s airhead comparison of the qualities of Andy versus Dick is mildly amusing (“He had lot of coats and keeps himself and his car in great shape. Most of his behaviour was asinine but at least he was different”), and Harry commiserates with Coop over failing to help Lucy out (“Well it was a good thought, but its like trying to fix those potholes on Highway Nine. First heavy rain and Thwweeettt”).


Jean Renault: I want this man to bring me the ransom.

The introduction of Jean Renault continues to pay dividends, however. He delivers a business proposition to Ben, in which the latter is put on the back foot and has little choice but to agree. This involves Coop delivering Audrey’s ransom. She’s still riding the tiger, and Holland shoots a rather good scene where she witnesses the demise of Emory Battis, on the end of one of Jacques’ bullets. Audrey is high, and Holland makes effective use of point of view. The scene also suggests that, as much Jacques is a ruthless rotter (he’s going to have Audrey killed, after all) he at least posses a certain villain’s code Emory, who has hit Audrey, lacks.


Codes of honour play a significant role throughout. Coop asks Harry for the services of a Bookhouse Boy for a dangerous mission; of course, as if anyone but Coop couldn’t guess, it’s Harry who shows up.


Leland Palmer: He killed my Laura. Have you ever experienced absolute loss?

In the aftermath of Leland’s arrest, much is concerned with reactions to the murder charge. There are some nice touches, most notably Dr Hayward expressing sympathy for his old friend. He comments sadly that parents should not have to bury their children. Coop rounds on him harshly, having none of it; “Do you approve of murder, Dr Hayward?


Clinton Sternwood: Just let me just say that when these frail shadows we inhabit now have quit the stage, we’ll meet and raise a glass again together, in Valhalla.
Leland Palmer: Would that it were so.

Ray Wise makes the most of his time in the spotlight, with Leland admitting to murder outright, but explaining how he was compelled to act, because, “deep down, every cell screams”. Judge Clinton Sternwood (Royal Dano) also comes out testifying  for Leland, saying he knows him to be a fine, decent man and a capable attorney.


Western legend Dano is a quirky presence, and the judge is treated as a plum guest star part, given interactions with all the main regulars. He doesn’t really blend in as a Peakscharacter, though, more the type you’d find in a straight soap or drama. He does have a suitably irreverent tone, however (“Who do you have to grease to get some coffee round here?”)


Agent Cooper: Heaven is a large and interesting place, sir.

Coop repeats his affection for the town to the judge, comparing Twin Peaks to heaven, despite the “arson, multiple homicides and the attempt on the life of a federal agent”. Harry’s promise “You two should have a lot in common” isn’t really lived up to, however (although there is a line or two in the next episode explaining this).


2.4 also appears to be a bit of a dead end for investigations; Hawk reports that no one called Robertson ever lived next door to the Palmers, and there’s still no sign of Gerrard (although Andy bought a pair of his boots from him). This is a middling episode of Twin Peaks, its sobriety indicative of the direction the show shouldn’t be headed. Perhaps the best that can be said of Laura's Secret Diary is the latter part is set on an atmospherically stormy night.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom (2018)
(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity.

Wasn't it her brother who murdered all those babysitters?

Halloween (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that you can keep going back to the same crumbling well and there'll still be a ready and willing (nostalgic) audience to lap up the results, at least for the first weekend. The critics seemed to like this sequel to the first movie, though, which expressly wipes out Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later – which also retconned out of existence everything aside from the first two movies. Mind you, the makers would do that, since both cover similar ground, while this Halloween ends up not being noticeably all that superior.