Skip to main content

A wrong has been made right, and the Sun is shining bright.

Twin Peaks
3.13: What is the story, Charlie?

(SPOILERS) After the relative wheel-spinning of the previous episode, What is the story, Charlie? makes up for it and then some, with hugely satisfying Evil Coop and Dougie Coop plotlines and several really nice little moments back in Peaks itself. Damn it, they’re making me care about characters I always found tiresome in the original!


Anthony Sinclair: Dougie saved my life. Thank you, Dougie.
Dougie-Coop: Thank Dougie.

I’m betting Tom Sizemore loves playing Anthony Sinclair. It’s so entirely against his type – “a weak fucking coward” as John Savage’s bent cop puts it – there’s an added enjoyment factor to seeing Sinclair break down and confess upon having Dougie-Coop massage his dandruff-coated shoulders. Dougie-Coop’s idiot savant ability to unknowingly bring about exactly the most positive solution is verging on the Clouseau-like (“I tried to poison Dougie, he saw right through me”), such that now even the crooked cops are implicated (while the incompetent ones, the Fusco brothers, manage to discard the evidence of who Coop is, in a mischievous Lynch dismissal of what he surely knows is the audience’s paramount desire to get our Coop back). And there are two helpings of cherry pie: Dougie’s and, prospectively, Becky’s.


I have to admit, I’m not so sure about Janey-E, since almost everything we see about her affection for Dougie-Coop suggests the shallowest of characters. She has an entirely oblivious husband with great abs who gives her wild orgasms and elicits confessions of “Oh Dougie, I love you so much” when she sets eyes on the amazing new sports car that’s been delivered courtesy of the Mitchum brothers. Who knows, maybe Lynch is making a wry commentary on the ideal husband, but Janey-E comes across as entirely materialistic (entirely likably so, though, thanks to Watts’ fantastic performance). But more to the point, which is better: Sunny Jim’s insanely-lit-up-like-the-Vegas-Strip gym set or Ray’s gang’s insanely-oversized monitor screen?


Bushnell Mullins: Dougie, you might want to call your wife?
Dougie-Coop: Wife?

So just when did that ball-tossing scene in the back garden take place last episode? Not between the Mitchums taking Dougie out to celebrate and his arriving at the office the next day – Robert Knepper doing the conga is priceless, whereas Belushi looks like he does it all time – that’s for sure (Lynch likely just doesn’t care with some of this stuff, like the auto incident of the previous episode involving Bobby not occurring on the same day as his finding his dad’s message and later relating that to Ed in the diner in this one).


Muddy: No one can beat him at arm wrestling. If you lose, Ranzo’s your boss.
Evil Coop: What’s this, kindergarten? Nursery school? What do I get if I win?
Muddy: You be our boss.
Evil Coop: I don’t want to be your boss. But if I win, I want him (points to Ray).

The hands-down sequence of the episode is Evil Coop’s visit to Ranzo (Derek Mears) and his gang, with the aim of settling a score with Ray. It pulls one of my favourite devices of putting you suddenly on the side of the bad guy, as Coop, outnumbered and roundly mocked over his chances of winning at arm-wrestling, and whacked on the back of the head (it was probably this act that sealed the boss’s fate), proceeds to entirely take the piss out of Ranzo’s macho bullshit.


Evil Coop: Starting position’s more comfortable.

Evil Coop’s succinct delivery here has a touch of the Dougie about it, and both have a stillness that contrasts effectively with those they come into contact with. I half expected Coop to pull a Jeff Goldblum in The Fly and bloodily snap Ranzo’s arm, but instead he merely breaks it and puts his nose through his skull.


Ray: He said that you’ve got something inside that they want.

It’s interesting how much this series is revolving around characters who can no longer make an live appearance. Bob, Major Briggs, and now Phillip Jeffries. I’m wondering if they’ll end up recasting Bowie, but give an unreal explanation for it. So Jeffries’ idea was to put the ring on Evil Coop and have him transported back to the Black Lodge… And isn’t it going to be a major let-down for Evil Coop when he learns the coordinates lead him back to Twin Peaks, somewhere he’s studiously avoided for a quarter of a century?


Other things to note of this scene: we get to connect the dots between Richard Horne and the bad crowd he’s in with (there seems to be online expectation of Richard being revealed as Evil Coop’s son, which I guess is possible, but even crueller of Lynch towards Audrey if so): the man in the corner (“Do you need any money?”): Jeffries is at the Dutchman’s (presumably flying, so in some place of limbo, outside of time?)


Big Ed: Good to see you, Walter.
Walter: What’s his name again?

Aw. I never much cared for Big Ed in the original Peaks, dismissing him in much the same way Albert did, but seeing the poor sap still forlorn, never catching a break, bereft without the love of his life, ending the episode nursing a cup-a-soup at Big Ed’s Gas Farm (the site of the convenience store with the smelly demon tramps?) is terribly sad.


The uber-soapy plot of Norma’s Double-R franchise is also a sign that Lynch and Frost are very much prepared to take the show on to another season should there be a greenlight – there are only five episodes left! – and it seems Showtime will be happy to wave them through if they’re willing. Walter (Grant Goodeve) is surely a new contender for most hissable tool, trying to undermine Norma’s natural, organic, made with love service with a smile. How dare he, and then have the audacity of asking her to dinner!


Nadine: Can I call you Dr Amp?

And is this romance between Dr Jacoby and Nadine? Or what approximates the stirrings of it, as he recalls seeing her seven years previously, looking for a potato on the floor of the supermarket. There was a big storm that day, apparently. Anyway, this one may not go anywhere, much like Dr Amp’s circular broadcasts (“Thanks to you, I’m starting to shovel myself out of the shit”)…


… and the TV show Sarah Palmer is watching on a seriously deranged alcoholic loop (“And now it’s a boxing match again”). Is this a very obvious comment on the perma-inebriated state, or is there something else going on, complete with signature Lynch electrical sound effects? Probably both. I kept expecting some really weird shit to transpire, the scene dripping with pregnant menace, but instead with get teased some more.


Audrey: I feel like I’m somewhere else. Have you ever had that feeling, Charlie?
Charlie: No.
Audrey: Like I’m somewhere else and I’m someone else. Have you ever felt like that?
Charlie: No, I always feel like myself. And it may not always be the best feeling.
Audrey: Well, I’m not sure who I am, but I’m not me.
Charlie: This is Existentialism 101.
Audrey: Oh, fuck you! I’m serious.


I wouldn’t say Audrey isn’t still acting the bitch this week, exactly, but she’s clearly got some screws missing which makes her a touch less unsympathetic. On the other hand, I found Clark Middleton hilariously deadpan as Charlie, and I’d like to see him interacting with more of the show’s iconic characters. Get him out and about. Audrey still wants the lowdown of his phone conversation with Tina, and she’s all conflicted about going to the Roadhouse. Most indecipherable is the end of their conversation, and the title of the episode:

Charlie: Wow, are you going to stop playing games, or do I have to end your story too?
Audrey: What story is that Charlie? Is it the story of the little girl, who lived down the lane? Is it?


Well, is it? Ed had me feeling for him, and so did old James Silk Hurley, hitting those impossibly high Smurf notes with an encore of Just You that Renee (Jessica Szohr) seems to think is just for her. At least, she’s responding that way. An episode so satisfying, Lynch even pulls off a solid toilet gag when Anthony disposes of his poisoned coffee (“That bad, huh?”). 3.13 gets five stars. It’s that good.










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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…