Skip to main content

Is that a cherry pie?

Twin Peaks
3.11: There’s fire where you are going.

(SPOILERS) A damn good episode. Perhaps the lesser part of it is the still great FBI plotline, but that’s only because – despite having the most overtly weird elements – it is more linear and less inimitable than the other claims to fame: Bobby and the shooting incident, and Dougie-Dale’s encounter with the Mitchum Brothers. Yes, it’s taken me a while, but I’ve finally come around to silver fox Bobby. Or should that be Becky’s pops.


What impressed me most about this sequence was the way it develops – escalated would be the wrong word. You think the scene is about one thing but then it becomes about something else, and then it becomes about something else entirely. During the build-up to this we’ve had the ominous, Blue Velvet-esque scene in which a boy playing ball sights Miriam crawling bloodied from the woods. Followed by Shelly riding the bonnet of her car until Becky throws her off. 


There’s something very matter-of-fact procedural about the lengths Lynch goes to show Maggie at the switchboard being called (courtesy of dear old Carl Rodd) and Bobby getting back to his ex – it’s Lynch most noticeable aesthetic in this third season, slowing everything right down, but here lending an air of the ‘50s cop show to the proceedings, such that it could almost be a public information film. Most shocking is that weasely Steve is having an affair with none other than Alicia Witt (Gersten Hayward). Not that can you can blame him, but her appalling lapse of taste is frankly deplorable (I was just waiting to hear a Steve-sized body hit the floor when Becky fired those shots through the door).


Shelly: Becky, we know you’re a grown, married woman, but we’re your parents, and we love you.

Once we’re in the diner, the shifts in emphasis become downright riveting. For some reason, it simply didn’t occur to me that Bobby might be Becky’s dad, and I was completely on the side of sad-faced Briggs when Shelly skips out with her latest bad choice, Red (Norma can well look on disapprovingly, as Shelly’s surrogate ma, since he’s definitely a Hank Jennings type, just with more tricks up his sleeve, and with Becky that makes three generations of poor decisions in men).


And then we shift again, as shots are fired through the diner window, but rather than an enraged Steve, or an enraged anyone, it’s just a kid who found his dad’s gun. A disturbing kid, whose posture is exactly that of his unconcerned dad, hands in pockets while mom does the remonstrating.


And after a while of this, all to the background blare of a car horn, Bobby finally goes to ask the vehicle’s occupant to hush. He gets a hysterical meltdown in response, and you can only feel for his stunned response, as the woman announces “We have to get home! She’s sick!” while her daughter rises from the floor, spewing something bilious and looking for all the world like Linda Blair’s little sister. It’s a bizarre, brilliant series of encounters, and I’d have been just as aghast as Bobby at the final one.


Hawk: You don’t ever want to know about that.
Sheriff Truman: Really?
Hawk: Really.

Also up: the wisdom of Hawk, with his living map, and its black fire and strange bug head – which we’ve seen before on Evil Coop’s playing card – as he instructs Sheriff Truman he really doesn’t want to know about the latter, before Margaret calls and underlines matters nicely (“There’s fire where you are going. My log is afraid of fire”). The Twin Peaks-focused plotlines have gathered pace enough that they’re as intriguing as those elsewhere now, and there’s even some light relief from oblivious Deputy Holcomb (“Sheriff Truman, are you interested in seeing my new car?”)


Bushnell Mullins: Dougie, now that I’ve had time to think about this, it’s clear that your investigative work has exposed a ring of organised crime and possible police corruption flowing through this office.

There was more than enough there to be getting on with, but we’re also treated to Dougie-Coop vs the Mitchum brothers. That Dougie-Coop pulls through with absolute lack of effort on his part comes as no surprise, but the manner in which this unfolds is a delight, from the brothers’ “I can’t wait to kill this guy” to the gradual revealing of Bradley’s premonitory dream, complete with Rodney’s healed Candie-cut and Dougie-Coop carrying a box, which, rather than Gwyneth Paltrow’s head, conceals a cherry pie (it’s safe to say the cheque for $30m wasn’t part of his twinkle time). Mike was obviously aware of the magical properties of cherry pie, but how far his influence spans (Bradley’s dream is a safe bet, but Candie’s cuckoo state?) is open to debate.


Rodney Mitchum: This pie is damn good.
Dougie-Coop: Damn good.

How much longer can all the things Coop loves fail to entirely reintegrate his mental state? Coffee, now cherry pie. It’s a marvellous twist to have Dougie-Coop the new best pal of the Mitchums, and one can only wonder how long it will last, and where it will lead. Candie, in her distracted state, seems like the ideal foil for Dougie-Coop, but they’re both too distracted – by eating pie or serving it –  to pay much attention to each other. And Lady-Slot-Addict’s arrival (“I hope you realise what a special person you have dining with you”) is the perfect send-off to Coop blithely trailing light wherever he goes, like an idiot messiah.


Gordon Cole: He’s dead.

FBI-wise, we see William Hastings lose his head, or half of it, at the hands of the devil tramps who were evidently in the room (“Dirty, bearded men, in a room”) we heard about last week (rather than it being the room in Fire Walk with Me); their modus operandi being the same as the thing in the penthouse.


Gordon is further into his vision quest (again, this would have been earmarked as Coop material if he’d been compos mentis), Diane (“There’s no back up for this”) is digging herself a deeper hole as she memorises coordinates very obviously – coordinates that more than likely will lead to that intersection of FBI and local law enforcement I mooted a few weeks back – and Albert gets a pithy line (“I don’t suppose you found Major Briggs’ head anywhere?”) Curiously, no one seems willing to observe that the dirty bearded men were phasing in and out of corporeal form, but I guess that comes with the territory, or it could just lead to further suspicions.


So yeah, go Bobby Briggs. I’m rooting for ya.











Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?