Skip to main content

Coop, what happened to dead Josie?

Twin Peaks
2.16: The Condemned Woman

I was a little premature to mark out Season Two’s upward path as consistent from 2.14 onwards. This and the next episode are a bit of slip back. Tricia Block pens her second episode, but despite a few strong moments Lesli Link Glatter is unable to fashion gold from it. The Condemned Woman is most notable for closing off the underwhelming Josie saga (Harry’s long dark weekend of the soul aside), and doing so in the most deranged manner.


Special Agent Cooper: Why did you shoot me, Josie?
Josie: Because you came here. I knew this day was going to come. I’m not going to jail.

Josie was never most scintillating of characters, set up as a femme fatale but lacking the storylines to justify that status. Now, when we find out why she shot Coop… it’s nonsense. She’s not mad, or wasn’t, and she was quite a cool customer around the time Coop was shot, so the decision to pin the attempted on murder on her cries foul.


Special Agent Cooper: Albert, I don’t take it personally.

The lead up to her demise isn’t especially rewarding either. Coop tries to delay the inevitable for Harry’s sake, but in the meantime Catherine lets Josie have a gun so she can toodle off to see Eckhardt. Albert, in his least noteworthy appearance, doesn’t even get a good line. He’s hell-bent on nailing Josie (“Bust this bitch”) and absent his customary acid wit. The worst of it is, this is the last we see of him.


I have to admit, I hadn’t realised how small David Warner’s role in the show was. A little of him has a lot of impact, clearly. He gets a decent death scene, but he’d been doing those with aplomb for a good 20 years by this point. There’s also a nice scene between him and Dan O’Herlihy in a lift where the latter exclaims, “I’m aliiiiivve!” with some vim. Andrew also has a good guffaw when Pete makes a face out of his breakfast bacon and eggs, leading to Catherine making a Hardy Boys comparison.


Bob: Coop, what happened to dead Josie?

The reason this ep gets a just above mediocre rating is the ending. It’s downright weird. Mostly in random way, but still. Coop and then Harry confront Josie. She’s armed, having just shot Eckhardt. And then, just like that, she drops dead. Rather melodramatic and a bit convenient (Harry doesn’t have to kill her). And then Bob appears by the bed quizzing Coop on her fate, followed by the Man from Another Place doing a shoe shuffle across the covers.


It isn’t as if Josie’s world would intersect with the Lodges for any good reason, except for the expediency of sending the series generally in that direction. Weirdest of all, rightat the end we see her face trapped in a wooden drawer nob, screaming and twisting and then freezing (the effect hold up very well, actually). What’s it all about?


We learn next episode that she weighed only 65 pounds at her autopsy, the suggestion being her soul was sucked into the fabric of the hotel. Why her in particular? Maybe her fear made good fodder for Bob and the Man from Another Place? It was apparently intended that she be glimpsed in the Black Lodge during the season finale. Effective as the scene is, I’m not convinced it was a plotline that merited merging with the main mythology of the show.


Of which, Windom Earle is on a bit of a back burner, requesting Coop makes a move “Or I will make it for you”. I hadn’t realised the mask on the bed was Caroline’s death mask. Aside from laying out his (rather redundant really; it leads to no real consequences, almost as the writers dropped something they had planned) meet for Donna, Audrey and Shelly (“Please attend a gathering of the angels”) with their pieces of poem, and dressing as a lumberjack, Windom has Leo sharpening sticks for arrows (to be used in an episode or three). It occurs to me that by this point Leo has spent comparable time in a dirty old dressing gown to Arthur Dent in The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.


Elsewhere, we see more owls (one in the jar in the first scene), Coop practices his casting in his hotel room, there’s the first mention of Norma’s sister Annie (the lovely Heather Graham) and James and Donna have a picnic (exactly as riveting as that sounds). It’s also the last appearance of Hank. One might have expected him to be shot by Harry. Instead, he screams at Norma from his cell that she’s a whore (“I’d rather be his whore than your wife”) as yet again Ed and Nadine agree to break up (we went through this last week).


There’s an increasing focus on Ben Horne, so it’s as well Richard Beymer is so watchable. He’s taken up prop eating. This week its celery, but carrots will become his Bugs Bunny food of choice. This is the point, post madness, where he decides to lead a righteous life/screw over Catherine (take your pick) and devote himself to saving “the little pine weasel” which will just happen to hamper Catherine’s plans to develop Ghostwood (he may also run for senate). Jerry’s on hand to make some off-colour remarks (“They’re incredible roasted” he comments of the pine weasel) and, in an unseen incident, “The Chef just tried to stab Jerry”.


Which just leaves saying that this episode’s major new character is your friend Billy Zane. He’s a cool dude. At this point McLachlan had nixed the Audrey relationship (because she was too young for Coop, or because Boyle had dictated how things had to be for BF Kyle), so Audrey gets paired with Zane’s John Justice Wheeler. He’s kind of a dullard, frankly. More lively than James Hurley, but who isn’t? It’s also slightly creepy that he should wax lyrical about Audrey at 10 years old dressed as Heidi, but I guess we should forgive him since he’s Billy Zane. As for Audrey, all that Season One promise seems to have ebbed away, as she is forced into a corporate straight jacket (and snarled at by a concierge).






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

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.