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…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

What I have tried to show you is the inevitability of history. What must be, must be.

The Avengers 2.24: A Sense of History
Another gem, A Sense of History features one of the series’ very best villains in Patrick Mower’s belligerent, sneering student Duboys. Steed and Mrs Peel arrive at St Bode’s College investigating murder most cloistered, and the author of a politically sensitive theoretical document, in Martin Woodhouse’s final, and best, teleplay for the show (other notables include Mr. Teddy Bear and The Wringer).

Are you drinking the water?

A Cure for Wellness (2016)
(SPOILERS) Well, this is far more suited to Dane DeHaan’s slightly suspect shiftiness than ludicrously attempting to turn him into an outright action hero (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets). It’s not, though, equal to director Gore Verbinski’s abilities. One of Hollywood’s great visualists but seemingly languishing without a clear path since he was cast adrift from collaborating with Johnny Depp, unfortunately, he must cop most of the blame for A Cure for Wellness, since it was his idea.

There’s a whiff of Shutter Island’s pulp psychodrama tonally, as DeHaan’s unscrupulous finance company executive Lockhart is sent to a Swiss health spa to fetch back a board member vital to pressing ahead with a merger. No sooner has he reached the alpine wellness centre, resplendent in the grounds of historic castle with a dark past, than he’s involved in a car accident, leaving him with a leg in a cast and “encouragement” to recuperate on site, taking the waters …

Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.

Star Trek (2009)
(SPOILERS) If JJ Abrams’ taking up the torch of the original Star Wars trilogy had been as supremely satisfying as his Star Trek reboot, I’d have very little beef with it. True, they both fall victim to some incredibly ropey plotting, but where Star Trek scores, making it an enormously rewatchable movie, is that it gets its characters right – which isn’t to suggest it’s getting The Original Series characters right, but it’s giving us compelling new iterations of them – and sends them on emotional journeys that satisfy. If the third act is somewhat rote, its achievements up to that point put it comfortably in the top rank of Trek movies.

This here's a bottomless pit, baby. Two-and-a-half miles straight down.

The Abyss (1989)
(SPOILERS) By the time The Abyss was released in late summer ’89, I was a card carrying James Cameron fanboy (not a term was in such common use then, thankfully). Such devotion would only truly fade once True Lies revealed the stark, unadulterated truth of his filmmaking foibles. Consequently, I was an ardent Abyss apologist, railing at suggestions of its flaws. I loved the action, found the love story affecting, and admired the general conceit. So, when the Special Edition arrived in 1993, with its Day the Earth Stood Still-invoking global tsunami reinserted, I was more than happy to embrace it as a now-fully-revealed masterpiece.

I still see the Special Edition as significantly better than the release version (whatever quality concerns swore Cameron off the effects initially, CGI had advanced sufficiently by that point;certainly, the only underwhelming aspect is the surfaced alien craft, which was deemed suitable for the theatrical release), both dramatically and them…

You just keep on drilling, sir, and we'll keep on killing.

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk (2016)
(SPOILERS) The drubbing Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk received really wasn’t unfair. I can’t even offer it the “brave experiment” consolation on the basis of its use of a different frame rate – not evident in itself on 24fps Blu ray, but the neutering effect of the actual compositions is, and quite tellingly in places – since the material itself is so lacking. It’s yet another misguided (to be generous to its motives) War on Terror movie, and one that manages to be both formulaic and at times fatuous in its presentation.

The irony is that Ang Lee, who wanted Billy Lynn to feel immersive and realistic, has made a movie where nothing seems real. Jean-Christophe Castelli’s adaptation of Ben Fountain’s novel is careful to tread heavily on every war movie cliché it can muster – and Vietnam War movie cliché at that – as it follows Billy Lynn (British actor Joe Alwyn) and his unit (“Bravo Squad”) on a media blitz celebrating their heroism in 2004 Iraq …

Don't give me any of that intelligent life crap, just give me something I can blow up.

Dark Star (1974)
(SPOILERS) Is Dark Star more a John Carpenter film or more a Dan O’Bannon one? Until the mid ‘80s it might have seemed atypical of either of them, since they had both subsequently eschewed comedy in favour of horror (or thriller). And then they made Big Trouble in Little China and Return of the Living Dead respectively, and you’d have been none-the-wiser again. I think it’s probably fair to suggest it was a more personal film to O’Bannon, who took its commercial failure harder, and Carpenter certainly didn’t relish the tension their creative collaboration brought (“a duel of control” as he put it), as he elected not to work with his co-writer/ actor/ editor/ production designer/ special effects supervisor again. Which is a shame, as, while no one is ever going to label Dark Star a masterpiece, their meeting of minds resulted in one of the decade’s most enduring cult classics, and for all that they may have dismissed it/ seen only its negatives since, one of the best mo…