Skip to main content

One for the grandkids.

Twin Peaks
17: The past dictates the future 
18: What is your name?

So the great evil that Gordon Cole (David Lynch) has been battling to defeat all this time is Judy/Jowday/Jaio Dai (Chinese for “resolution” or “explanation”). It’s kind of a cheap shot, really. Lynch saying “This is what you get when you dare to ask me to make sense of things, or tell you who killed Laura Palmer”. Being, an episode where he offers resolution in an almost perversely perfunctory manner, followed by an episode in which he recants and invites you never to receive any again. Ever. I much preferred the latter.


David Lynch: It's human nature to have a tremendous let-down once you receive the answer to a question, especially one that you've been searching for and waiting for. It's a momentary thrill, but it's followed by a kind of depression.

That said, I’m not one to exalt Lynch’s wilful surreality without question. I don’t venerate the guy or get a kick from telling those who didn’t appreciate Season Three’s lack of resolution (or explanation) that they just don’t get it, don’t get Lynch and – probably not saying the last part but thinking it ­– they’re far superior and so much more perceptive for clutching this uncontained artist to their collective bosoms. Because there is a bit of that going on in naysaying those who are annoyed about being stumped by what they got (as opposed to being enthusiastically stumped, like the rest of us). There’s also a bit of being stumped at the stumped, who surely ought to have realised about halfway in (maybe even a quarter) that Lynch and Frost weren’t going to satisfy in a traditional narrative sense.


Lynch has always been a bit hit and miss, and for the most part The Return, as some are calling it, is very much hit, but it also whiffs of a very calculated endeavour on his part. I don’t for a second think he was blithely unaware of the ramifications of holding back “our” (dear) Dale Cooper until the pre-penultimate episode, and then handling the reunion of old faces in a babbling, breakneck manner. He was precisely saying that he had no interest in reheating the comfort food of the ABC original incarnation (one thing Season 3 hasn’t been at any point is warm, lush or welcoming, which the previous show, even at its most unsettling, managed to be; while I’m a fan of much of what he has done with the season, I’m not so keen on how flat the digital visuals could be when the director wasn’t going all out for atmosphere and weirdness. Sometimes it was almost as if he’d opened a(nother) bottle of wine and sat down with the cast for a quiet tipple and accidentally filmed the dress rehearsal).


Gordon Cole: For 25 years, I’ve kept something from you, Albert.

I suspect that was also precisely on Lynch’s mind when he held forth, sorry, I mean when Gordon held forth, in some of the most lazy-arsed, made-up-on-the-spot retconning of what it’s all been about. You want explanation? Gordon will give you some that makes every cobbled-together finale in search of something halfway satisfying (Battlestar Galactica, Lost, what have you) seem like robust pre-planning in comparison. Lynch, like Gordon and his hyperactive schlong, has not gone soft in his old age. I enjoyed Albert’s blithe response to being deceived by his boss for 25 years. It would have been better, though, if he’d done a really cutting Albert and said “You just made that up”.


Gordon Cole: The last thing Cooper told me was, ‘If I disappear, like the others, do everything you can to find me. I’m trying to kill two birds with one stone’. And now, this thing of two Coopers.

So we get an elaborately under-baked backstory of the plans hatched between Gordon, Coop and Major Briggs, and that Gordon knows – somehow, probably in the same magical way Coop knows the abilities of the Iron Rubber Glove; Lynch and Frost told them – that Phillip Jeffries “doesn’t really exist anymore, at least not in the normal sense”. They even have a paid informant (Ray) to tell them Evil Coop was looking for some co-ordinates while in prison. Thus, having brought us up to speed that he’s been waiting a quarter of a century for his Special Agent to get back in touch…

Gordon Cole: And I don’t even know if this plan is unfolding properly, because we should have heard by now from our dear Dale Cooper.


I did like the humour of this, of having Coop call just at that very moment, but the scene as a whole is too slipshod to make it land as it should. There were other things I appreciated too, of course – even this episode, probably my least favourite of the run, still has much going for it – mostly our dear Albert, as Miguel Ferrer gets in some final quips:

Special Agent Randall Headley: We’ve found him. We’ve found Douglas Jones. But we… don’t know where he is.
Albert: Has my watch stopped or is that one of the Marx Brothers?


His response to learning Dougie Dale electrocuted himself by sticking a fork in a wall socket too: “That’s strange, even for Cooper”. However, there isn’t one moment during his and Tammy reading from her laptop where you believe there’s anything actually on there. But this is Lynch in mock-exposition mode, so whatever, it all comes tumbling out. And sets the stage for a less-than-engaged final confrontation with Bob.


Sheriff Truman: What brings you back to Twin Peaks, Agent Cooper?
Evil Cooper: Unfinished business.

Whatever it is Evil Coop thinks he’s going to get (Judy too, by some accounts, hence the Palmer’s house being on screen when he visits the Fireman but his getting diverted to the Sheriff’s), it’s permanently truncated by Lucy in a pay-off to her earlier cell phone bafflement gag. The best moments in the Sheriff’s station are pre-Cooper’s arrival. There’s a masterfully drawn out piece of suspense as Frank stares out the definitely-not-right Cooper, while pandemonium breaks out in the cells and Andy gets future flashes.


But then, the smiting of Bob plays with all the drama of an episode of Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, and I have to assume Lynch wanted it free from any atmosphere or investment in the proceedings, complete with Coop’s mug superimposed as if in a eulogy (you only have to compare Richard Coop taking on three cowboys in the next episode to see Lynch can summon the staging and editing when he wants).


Candie: It’s a good thing we made so many sandwiches.

There’s more flimsy exposition to follow, this time regarding the key to the Great Northern (“Major Briggs told me Sheriff Truman would have it”). We learn there are some things that will change, that “The past dictates the future”, and that Coop has a chubby for Diane (but how’s Annie, oh fickle Dale?), who was Naido all along (but is also in the Black Lodge when Cooper finds her; that Cooper doesn’t mention this suggests he may not be the same Cooper we see here), we are told, once again, that “We live inside a dream”, and that Cooper must dash, he’s still on a mission but he hopes to meet up with everyone again: “See you at the curtain call”. Probably in a church, at the end of time, when they all reminisce about how important they all were to each other’s lives.


Because Coop is trying to right wrongs, it seems (“This is where you’ll find Judy”), as Mike and the Enormous Teapot help him on his quest. The owl cave symbol becomes that of infinity (there is no end to this), and Coop goes back to February 23 1989 for a spot of Back to the Future Part II-ing.


Most of this sequence fell flat for me, from the over-extended excerpt from a portion of Fire Walk with Me that wasn’t so riveting even in context (I mean, it had James in it: James MK I), to a de-aged Laura in a badly-fitting wig (Windom Earle did a better job playing the Log Lady – or maybe it was purposeful, a badly fitting wig to remind us of the badly-fitting wig Maddy Ferguson sported that time), to the did-he/didn’t-he change things as Laura’s body disappears from the lake shore (and if he did, where/when/how did this take effect?).


At least I was re-engaged come Sarah Palmer’s (Judy’s) kill-frenzy on Laura’s photo, which seemed to put an end to Coop’s attempt to save her. At least, for now. And then that scream. Suppose Coop had (has?) saved her, though; as others have pointed out, she would still have suffered years of abuse at the hands of her father/Bob, so it’s debatable what kind of happy ending Coop arriving at this point in time could foster.


There’s something of Back to the Future Part II in the finale also, but of the alternate 1985 variety, as the old, increasingly familiar alternate universe devices comes into play (to name but two recent apostles: Lindelof and Abrams with Leftovers/Lost/Fringe). But first, Dougie and Janey-E get a happy ending, so that’s one wee extra sliver of resolution.


That aside, Lynch strands Cooper in what appears to be an eternal, cyclic struggle, a Sisyphean attempt at variations on saving the day/saving Laura (but how’s Annie?) At the beginning of the episode, we hear “Is it future, or is it past?”, and with the reappearance of the Arm, and Coop exiting the lodge into the desert, the spectre of the opening episodes swam into focus. The explanation that what we’re seeing for the rest of the episode (even before Richard “takes over”) is another tulpa, and that this is taking place prior to/sideways from 3.17, around the time of those first few episodes (is it the past?) makes some degree of sense (“Is it really you?” Coop and Diane’s tulpas ask each other). In which case, they’re mere seeds, emissaries of the Fireman, on a quest to bring down Judy (by returning Laura in some form).


Dale Cooper”: Once we cross, it could all be different.

If so, it’s all different before they cross. I was much more in tune with the hypnotic monotony and suffocating strangeness of the final episode, the endless driving through a fractured reality – albeit some theorise this is the real reality, and everything hitherto has been a dream – (another Diane doppelganger observing the Diane who has entered this universe, Coop waking up in a different motel, with a different car and a different name).


Dear Richard. When you read this, I’ll be gone. I don’t recognise you anymore. Whatever we had together is over. Linda.

The sex scene is both endlessly odd and endless, whichever way you look at it (presumably Linda Diane is covering Richard Coop’s face because she can’t bear to look at someone she no longer recognises), but there’s a steely forcefulness to Richard Coop that contrasts effectively with the pervasive disorientation, following the synchronicitous signs to Carrie Page and then persuading her – sans the body in her living room – to come back to Twin Peaks. A different Twin Peaks without any Palmers in their residence (occupied by Tremonds, and before them Chalfonts, with a nice pot of garmonbozia stewing in the kitchen). There’s a resounding uncertainty over period (“What year is this?”) and a voice saying “Laura”, before that scream again (Sheryl Lee hasn’t lost her screaming face, that’s for sure). Richard Coop appears to know all about the version of Twin Peaks it should be, yet is apparently mystified by it being as different as he/his other self predicted it would be (it’s Lynch’s own Mandela Effect).


The Fireman: Remember 430. Richard and Linda. Two birds, one stone.

Having created so much anticipation for Coop’s return, then, Lynch proceeded to merrily puncture it. And there’s no way out for him. Perhaps this is Lynch’s vision of the recursive trap of existence, as told through Cooper: that no matter what we do, no matter how many lives we live, whether with best or worst intentions, we’re doomed to go around in never-ending circles, unable to wake up. Does it matter that we don’t get to find out what happened to Audrey (“Is it about the little girl who lives down the lane?”), whether she’s in the nut house or is in another alt-reality (perhaps 3.18’s alt-reality)?


On one level the finale confounds expectations, leaving behind it a season’s worth’s trail of undeveloped characters and hanging plot threads without no guarantee that we’ll ever be granted a continuation. On another, isn’t it entirely what someone who did exactly that 25 years ago would do? Someone who then made a prequel-sequel that actively refused to invite anyone to like it?

3.17:

3.18:










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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.