TWIN PEAKS

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

 

I'm sure it'll pick up again soon. 

 

I actually doubt that. I'm sure it will tax people's patience for quite a while

[Quintus 5,399]

I mean, if it did go down that route, one of 'anti-entertainment', as if it had been designed to antagonise or to estrange TP fans, then I'll probably reject it. 

 

But I very much doubt that is the design. I have a good memory, Steef - Twin Peaks actually has quite a fee shitty episodes, traditionally. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not bollocks at all. An 18 episode season. Unheard of today for Golden Age tv, but short compared to good old TV that gave you 22-26 episodes in a year. 

 

Loads of filler, but in the end that didn't really matter. As long as the average was solid and there were a few stand outs.

[Quintus 5,399]

36 minutes ago, KK said:

I kind of agree with Lee, in that some of the decisions made seem like poor construction choices of narrative and pacing. But will have to wait until we have to whole picture to see how well all of this really pays off.

 

If it all comes together by the end and the payoff is true, then all will be forgiven! Just like season 2.

 

I'm living and breathing Twin Peaks at the moment, so I've got a lot riding on this.. 

[mstrox 6,651]

I think it helps to picture this as Lynch's planned 18 hour movie.  There is nothing episodic about it at all.  If this thing were 2 hours, we would only be about 30 minutes in. The stage is still being set

[mrbellamy 6,289]

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

No, it isn't. The show needs to have a real burst of sustained momentum injected into it now, at five episodes in, because it feels frequently boring and actually quite wasteful. 

 

But this is Lynch! He's doing it his way! He doesn't do "momentum" as you understand it! 

 

Bollocks to that - I saw the gangbusters first two hours. 

 

I'm a little more patient than that. To me, yes, Lynch has earned benefit of the doubt and some rope to spin his wheels, based on just being Lynch but especially because he did start the season off so strong. I can wait until, say, Episode 9 for the show to feel like it's gathering momentum. Halfway seems appropriate to start really evaluating how this show is spending/wasting our time, both retrospectively and moving forward. Until then I'm reserving judgment and just following along, but I agree that this one was a bit dull and all over the place compared to the previous four.

 

Evil Coop's "phone call" and the Roadhouse smoking guy were pretty great scenes, though. I really hope Dougie doesn't last long, but I got a few laughs out of it here and there. Amanda Seyfried on coke was entertaining.

[Thor 7,518]

9 hours ago, Quintus said:

 

I didn't enjoy nor appreciate this overly-indulgent (yes I know it's Lynch) shot at all. Because it didn't feel earned. Who was this person? At this point that character is nobody of consequence to me; even if she is Shelly's daughter. I don't know enough about her life or motivations to want to see a protracted scene of her meaningless face eating up precious airtime in an episode of Twin Peaks. Unlike the thousands of baying TP crowds hanging on (for dear life) to every step this return takes, I won't necessarily buy into such unearned frilly extravagance just because it's David Lynch. 

 

I disagree. If you've seen your fair share of Lynch, you know that he doesn't follow traditional narratives. Scenes like the girl in the car don't have to be "earned" like in more traditional narratives. Perhaps it's a precursor of her role to come, perhaps it's just an insert of an emotion or idea (the latter is more likely). The moment you start approaching a Lynch movie like mainstream movies or TV shows, you're missing a hell of a lot of what he's about.

 

Perhaps David Lynch is not for you?

[Quintus 5,399]

I guess you're right. Ah well, I suppose I'll call it a day with Twin Peaks and go and see Prometheus 2 instead. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The problem is that you like tight, precise plotting. It doesnt have to be fast paced, but there needs to be a sense that it's moving somewhere. And it doesnt look like this show will oblige you. There seem to a a whole load of storylines all of which will advance just a little every week, rather than having episodes focus on alternating storylines.

 

Compared to what we've seen so far narrative wise even Game Of Thrones is like a fucking Swiss watch.

 

I hope you can tough it out.

[Quintus 5,399]

Thanks, but nobody has to tell me how to go about watching Twin Peaks. Why are some people acting like I'm ready to dump it from my viewing schedule? Don't they know how weird and offbeat Twin Peaks can be? Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but one or two seem to be reading an awful lot into my remarks here. All I did was update my presence in the thread with what was a short negative response to the latest episode. Then some discussion ensued. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Curiously though, I keep reading replies which seem to imply I'm on the brink of abandoning the whole thing based on an episode I found to be rather disappointing.

 

Moving on anyway, I don't buy Lynch's (or his defenders) "it's really an 18 hour movie" argument. I haven't since the very beginning, even after the marvelous two hour double feature which opened the season. Look, you can spin it any which way you like, but if you present your creation as a episode continuation each week via the television channel medium, I will treat it as television and I will consider it as being television. It isn't an 18 hour movie in the same way Breaking Bad wasn't, or Twin Peaks of old. 

 

As for Thor, I see he wheeled out his trusty "well maybe it's your fault for not understanding it in the way I do" shtick. We hear it every time somebody criticises a shit movie which he otherwise proclaims to be high art, and so it's easy to dismiss him just as a matter of routine. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

23 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Moving on anyway, I don't buy Lynch's (or his defenders) "it's really an 18 hour movie" argument. I haven't since the very beginning, even after the marvelous two hour double feature which opened the season. Look, you can spin it any which way you like, but if you present your creation as a episode continuation each week via the television channel medium, I will treat it as television and I will consider it as being television. It isn't an 18 hour movie in the same way Breaking Bad wasn't, or Twin Peaks of old.

 

I get your point. However even serialized shows which tell a longer story do have that story structured within individual episodes, which have a clear beginning, middle and end. This far that doesnt really seems to be the case for Twin Peaks. Or it's far less pronounced. If you're going in with an agenda saying "It's TV, so it has to conform to this and this and that" you might find yourself losing interest.

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

No I'm not going in with that agenda. That was literally just my answer to that claim, as brought up by somebody else in the thread. Again, I feel like you're telling me how to handle Twin Peaks or David Lynch. It's quite bewildering actually, but from what I can gather, it simply stems from my not enjoying something which others here did. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh not at all. And I do see where you're coming from. We're getting more actual Twin Peaks characters but it's all few and far between, without much of a trace of any new storylines. So far they are totally secondary to the new characters, and none of the new characters have really come to life in any way (Jade the hooker seems to be the nicest one).

 

I'm enjoying it, but I do hope it does eventually go somewhere. Or have a few characters I actually care about or am interested in in some way.

[Quintus 5,399]

I actually think it will lead to that, ultimately rather satisfyingly. Even if it's in the most abstract or ambiguous way imaginable. 

 

But bad episodes along the way will still be bad episodes after it's all finished. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You see I didnt think it was a bad episode.

 

Anyone else find the lack of an actual explosion of the car jarring? A bit cheap even?

[mstrox 6,651]

37 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Moving on anyway, I don't buy Lynch's (or his defenders) "it's really an 18 hour movie" argument. I haven't since the very beginning, even after the marvelous two hour double feature which opened the season. Look, you can spin it any which way you like, but if you present your creation as a episode continuation each week via the television channel medium, I will treat it as television and I will consider it as being television. It isn't an 18 hour movie in the same way Breaking Bad wasn't, or Twin Peaks of old. 

 

I wouldn't quite call myself a Lynch "defender," although I'm probably more favorable about his stuff than most.  I liked a lot of Inland Empire which a lot of people seem to despise.  I did really like the most recent episode - more than part 4, especially. 

 

However, when Lynch says that he cut an 18 hour movie, and Showtime says that they didn't have any say in the finished product, there's really no reason to doubt Lynch.  Every episode has ended on a "nothing" scene (A detective finding a hork of flesh in Matthew Lillard's trunk; Shelly commenting on James in a bar; Cole, Albert, and Tammy heading to SD; Cole and Albert discussing Mr. C in a parking lot; a weird box shrinking down to something? in South America) punctuated by an unrelated interlude over the credits. 

 

Whether or not you LIKE that is a different story - I've waxed and waned a bit.  Especially the earliest Dougie stuff in the casino in Part 3/4, and the weird Wally Brando scene.  Not my cup of tea.

 

Knowing Lynch over his last few "Lynchy" movies (Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr, Inland Empire), I'm not necessarily expecting much of the season to be explained or even hang together completely.  What I'm hoping for is that the whole thing will, in the end, fit together well enough as "a piece" emotionally, and that we'll get some of that classic Lynch catharsis that he does so well (think the immediate aftermath of Maddie's death in TP S2, Laura with the angel in FWWM, Silencio/Llorando in Mulholland Dr, Laura Dern's scene in the alleyway towards the end of Inland Empire).  We've already gotten that fitfully through the beginning of this series - Cooper's tear while looking at Sonny Jim, maybe the biggest example so far.  But Lynch can really bust my heart open, man.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Both Laura Palmer and Maddie's death packed an emotional whallop we havent seen in this season yet. 

[mstrox 6,651]

Yeah - I don't think this season has been heavy on emotion in general.  Aside from Bobby seeing Laura's picture, Cooper's single tear in Pt 5, and Shelly's daughter's coked out joy.  But I think we're getting there.

 

 

11 minutes ago, mstrox said:

 

I wouldn't quite call myself a Lynch "defender," although...

 

 

/20 paragraphs defending david lynch

 

[Once 605]

It isn't really that we're supposed to watch it as a 18-hour movie, it's just that the script was written as one long story, not cut up in episodes - according to MacLachlan, anyway.

[mstrox 6,651]

In interviews, Lynch has said he sees it as one 18-hour film.  Here's one:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/david-lynch-talks-twin-peaks-revival-mulholland-drive-w482337

 

I heard online that in the Cooper/Sonny Jim tear moment, Sonny Jim does the weird Black Lodge double blink thing that Laura Palmer does in Pt 2.  Turns out he actually does!  Last night when I blipped to it in the app to watch for it, I also couldn't stop laughing and replaying the Naomi Watts line that punctuates that scene:  "Okay Dougie, you're acting weird as shit!"  Such a great line reading.  Naomi Watts is really killing it with what little she's been given at this point - especially her first scene with the bag of money last week.

[Thor 7,518]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

As for Thor, I see he wheeled out his trusty "well maybe it's your fault for not understanding it in the way I do" shtick. We hear it every time somebody criticises a shit movie which he otherwise proclaims to be high art, and so it's easy to dismiss him just as a matter of routine. 

 

There's no "shtick", but from what you wrote, I found it pretty clear that you're not comfortable with Lynch's own "piecemeal" approach to narratives. You seemed to want some sort of justification for a particular scene or character, and it's simply not the way he works. I got the sense you're approaching this from a more traditional vantage point, and I think that's a misunderstood approach in this particular case.

[mstrox 6,651]

What did everybody think of the weird CGI Mr. C/BOB mirror morph?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think I must have missed that.

 

[Thor 7,518]

2 minutes ago, mstrox said:

What did everybody think of the weird CGI Mr. C/BOB mirror morph?

 

Great shot! One of my favourite moments. "You're still with me".

[mstrox 6,651]

In his prison cell after the food comes, Mr. C looks into the mirror.  It cuts to some stuff from the S2 finale- Mr. C and BOB laughing maniacally, Cooper smashing his head w/ Bob's reflection.  Then the face in the mirror merges to Frank Silva's, and he says something like, "glad to see you're still with me."

1 minute ago, Thor said:

 

Great shot! One of my favourite moments. "You're still with me".

 

Yeah, very interesting.  Unsettling in the same way that a lot of Lynch's CGI use has been in this season.  I saw a GIF on a TP message board yesterday - I'll link to it if I can find it

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I know the scene, just didnt notice the morph. Sunny day yesterday.

 

I did find that scene interesting. The fact that Mr. C refers to BOB as a different person, who's still with him. So Mr. C is more than just Bob in a Dopperganger Coop body, right?

[Thor 7,518]

You're watching TWIN PEAKS during the day?

[mstrox 6,651]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Thor said:

You're watching TWIN PEAKS during the day?

 

Is that a problem?

[Quintus 5,399]

59 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

There's no "shtick"

 

I disagree, I recognised it immediately.

 

8 hours ago, Thor said:

Scenes like the girl in the car don't have to be "earned" like in more traditional narratives. 

 

I couldn't be bothered responding to this earlier, but I just think your argument is cosy-up to Lynch nonsense. You find it convenient. Everything I watch has to be earned, specifically - my emotional response to it. Amanda Seigfreid whatsherface is nobody to me, I've never seen her in anything before last night's Twin Peaks episode (I've noticed some people seem to be enamoured with the actress). Her staring up into space for an overly long period of time to some Instagram theme music was a waste of time. 

[Thor 7,518]

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I couldn't be bothered responding to this earlier, but I just think your argument is cosy-up to Lynch nonsense. You find it convenient. Everything I watch has to be earned, specifically - my emotional response to it. Amanda Seigried whatsherface is nobody to me, I've never seen her in anything before last night's Twin Peaks episode. Her staring up into space for an overly long period of time to some Instagram theme music was a waste of time. 

 

Fair enough. You're free to have whatever reaction you want to. But I maintain that in the case of Lynch, you have to approach stories and characters with a slightly different mindset than you're used from more traditional storytelling. Just as you would, say, a Bela Tarr or Tarkovsky film in terms of tempo.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Anyone ordered?

 

 

[mstrox 6,651]

I know he's really gonna get me on the shipping and handling

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

 

Fair enough. You're free to have whatever reaction you want to. But I maintain that in the case of Lynch, you have to approach stories and characters with a slightly different mindset than you're used from more traditional storytelling. Just as you would, say, a Bela Tarr or Tarkovsky film in terms of tempo.

 

For the sake of argument, Thor, one could just as easily apply your take on this to the comically flat scenes between Andy and Lucy in the new Twin Peaks. 

 

Example:

Me (or you): 'I feel like Badalamenti is sorely missed during the lighter humour moments, and the comedy just doesn't work that well without the music. The "Twin Peaks-ness" isn't quite there.' 

 

Quote

If you've seen your fair share of Lynch, you know that he doesn't necessarily follow traditional concepts of comedy. [Awkward] scenes like Andy and Lucy speaking like a couple of idiots sans jazzy underscore don't have to be "earned" like in more traditional comedies. Perhaps the lack of music is a precursor of more successful comedy to come, perhaps it's just an insert of an emotion or idea (the latter is more likely). The moment you start approaching a Lynch movie like mainstream comedy movies or TV comedy shows, you're missing a hell of a lot of what he's about.

 

Perhaps David Lynch is not for you?

Like this

 

[mstrox 6,651]

Perhaps David Lynch is not for anyone?

[KK 3,307]

David Lynch is for David Lynch.

[Quintus 5,399]

3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

You see I didnt think it was a bad episode.

 

 

I know. I always just assume we're all well past this here, but just to remind you that it does of course normally go without saying that the thoughts and opinions I share here are just my own. 

 

3 hours ago, mstrox said:

 

I wouldn't quite call myself a Lynch "defender," although I'm probably more favorable about his stuff than most.  I liked a lot of Inland Empire which a lot of people seem to despise.  I did really like the most recent episode - more than part 4, especially. 

 

However, when Lynch says that he cut an 18 hour movie, and Showtime says that they didn't have any say in the finished product, there's really no reason to doubt Lynch.  Every episode has ended on a "nothing" scene (A detective finding a hork of flesh in Matthew Lillard's trunk; Shelly commenting on James in a bar; Cole, Albert, and Tammy heading to SD; Cole and Albert discussing Mr. C in a parking lot; a weird box shrinking down to something? in South America) punctuated by an unrelated interlude over the credits. 

 

Whether or not you LIKE that is a different story - I've waxed and waned a bit.  Especially the earliest Dougie stuff in the casino in Part 3/4, and the weird Wally Brando scene.  Not my cup of tea.

 

Knowing Lynch over his last few "Lynchy" movies (Lost Highway, Mulholland Dr, Inland Empire), I'm not necessarily expecting much of the season to be explained or even hang together completely.  What I'm hoping for is that the whole thing will, in the end, fit together well enough as "a piece" emotionally, and that we'll get some of that classic Lynch catharsis that he does so well (think the immediate aftermath of Maddie's death in TP S2, Laura with the angel in FWWM, Silencio/Llorando in Mulholland Dr, Laura Dern's scene in the alleyway towards the end of Inland Empire).  We've already gotten that fitfully through the beginning of this series - Cooper's tear while looking at Sonny Jim, maybe the biggest example so far.  But Lynch can really bust my heart open, man.

 

Good for you 

 

Inland Empire, Dune and Eraserhead are the only Lynch films I still haven't seen.

 

Also, I just want to remark that I'm glad as hell they didn't end the last episode on another song in the club again. I wasn't a fan of that, of the element of predictability it had introduced. 

[mstrox 6,651]

I'm curious if the eventual Blu-ray will retain the episodic structure, or whether it will be merged together in some way without the musical interludes.  In the broadcast airings of 1-2 and 3-4, the credits scenes for 1 and 3 were excised entirely.  Which means viewers didn't see the return of the Giant, or the second RR musical number.

[Thor 7,518]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

 

For the sake of argument, Thor, one could just as easily apply your take on this to the comically flat scenes between Andy and Lucy in the new Twin Peaks. 

 

Example:

Me (or you): 'I feel like Badalamenti is sorely missed during the lighter humour moments, and the comedy just doesn't work that well without the music. The "Twin Peaks-ness" isn't quite there.' 

abc

 

Not really the same, is it? One has to do with the the unique TWIN PEAKS ambiance, the other has to do with Lynch's approach to filmmaking and storytelling.

[Quintus 5,399]

The point is your notion regarding narrative approach and "earned response" was pretty meaningless. It's a subjective construct you created to provide a conduit for the only meaning present - the one you projected on the Amanda scene yourself. 

 

And my admittedly joking comparison does work, in as far as one could basically (and wrongly) adopt your counter in relation to any criticism of Lynch's work or his characteristics. Your method is to suggest that such observations of the director's style are invalid or unworkable since he doesn't always conform to some sort of traditional filmmaking template. That's party fine, he doesn't; but you still can't ring fence an artist in that way, sorry to break it to you. You consistently attempt to lay the blame on the critic rather than the artist, you always do that here. It is always a case of, "if you don't understand it then that's your fault." It is of course a shtick which is total nonsense, and it's the reason why I didn't bother to take you on earlier. You'll still be doing it this time next year. 

[Thor 7,518]

2 hours ago, Quintus said:

And my admittedly joking comparison does work, in as far as one could basically (and wrongly) adopt your counter in relation to any criticism of Lynch's work or his characteristics. Your method is to suggest that such observations of the director's style are invalid or unworkable since he doesn't always conform to some sort of traditional filmmaking template. That's party fine, he doesn't; but you still can't ring fence an artist in that way, sorry to break it to you. 

 

I disagree completely. I think you absolutely can -- and should! There are ways to "read" a filmmaker that at the very least requires meeting the work on some kind of common platform. That's not to negate a person's reaction to the work as invalid (which is purely subjective), but all about attitude and approach. To provide a more extreme example: If a person who's only seen big blockbuster sci fis in his life suddenly finds himself face to face with Tarkovsky's SOLARIS, expecting it to be some kind of traditional science fiction film, and then lambasting it for its lack of tempo or character motivation, well then I'd argue he did not know what he was going into. His reaction is not invalid, but his understanding of the work and the filmmaker is. He's not evaluating the work on its own terms.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But Lee has stated he's seen most of Lynch' output save 3 films. So your position doesn't really hold.

[Thor 7,518]

23 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

But Lee has stated he's seen most of Lynch' output save 3 films.

 

Which makes it all the more surprising that he would find the aforementioned scene "un-earned". Lynch's filmography is chockful of such scenes.

[Quintus 5,399]

2 hours ago, Thor said:

 

I disagree completely. I think you absolutely can -- and should! There are ways to "read" a filmmaker that at the very least requires meeting the work on some kind of common platform. That's not to negate a person's reaction to the work as invalid (which is purely subjective), but all about attitude and approach. To provide a more extreme example: If a person who's only seen big blockbuster sci fis in his life suddenly finds himself face to face with Tarkovsky's SOLARIS, expecting it to be some kind of traditional science fiction film, and then lambasting it for its lack of tempo or character motivation, well then I'd argue he did not know what he was going into. His reaction is not invalid, but his understanding of the work and the filmmaker is. He's not evaluating the work on its own terms.

 

That's never going to happen though is it, and no such person in your hypothesis exists. But at least you acknowledged that with your "extreme" disclaimer beforehand. Meanwhile, somebody somewhere did watch Solaris, knowing full well what the film was about and who made it. As it happens, their favourite film is 2001: A Space Odyssey. They have a preference, a predisposition shall we say, for deeply philosophical science fiction cinema. But for whatever reason, they just didn't much enjoy the Tarkovsky film as much as they hoped they would.  

 

I just made that person up of course, but there's still a greater chance this happened somewhere than your and painfully simplistic case example ever did. But what would you then say to this person I too just conjured up? Would you in that instance be willing to permit their subjective yet still credible response? I bet you'd still struggle with it, Thor. You always do. 

[Romão 2,274]

This was probably the episode I enjoyed the least thus far, although I still found it to be very good. It seemed to me to be the most meandering thus far, the one that introduced less new interesting elements. But we'll only know where this episode will stand in the larger context of the series, I'm sure, as some of its apparently more inconsequential scenes could have greater weight once watched in the larger scope of things

[Thor 7,518]

8 minutes ago, Quintus said:

That's never going to happen though is it, and no such person in your hypothesis exists.

 

Many such people exist. I encounter them on a daily basis, both off- and online.

 

All that is required -- or that should be required of any serious film buff -- is an open attitude and an awareness of film's many forms. I do not know your openness and awareness of films beyond Hollywood and traditional storytelling, but I'm sure you have both. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't post in a forum like this. Which -- as I said -- makes it all the more surprising that you're unable/unwilling (choose the appropriate) to recognize particular features of Lynch's work, like the presence of such "seemingly random" scenes.

[Quintus 5,399]

32 minutes ago, Thor said:

 

Which makes it all the more surprising that he would find the aforementioned scene "un-earned". Lynch's filmography is chockful of such scenes.

 

Are you sure you're not confusing this with "randomness"? I generally never feel like Lynch does things without imbuing some sort of foreshadowing meaning or linked significance in a scene. And certainly not in Twin Peaks. Showing an apparently celebrated young actress playing a drug addicted character staring up into the sky for a roughly a minute to music a few minutes after her first being introduced is assuredly random, but any meaning there I suggest was inserted solely by you. Because there otherwise was very little. 

 

To play along though, I suppose we could say that this new character is being lined up as a new Laura Palmer type of character. And this top-down shot was establishing her as an uncaring and vulnerable new target for, Ooo I don't know, Bob. 

 

That's great! Bring it on! 

 

But we just met the girl - don't drag it out like they dragged out Dougie Coop AKA Mr Jackpots himself spending a day at the casino, or sitting down for dementia breakfast. Because that shit's fucking boring to sit through after a while. If I feel like a scene is eating into precious 1 hour runtime, I expect emotional or meaningful justification for it. That's just how I am, sorry. 

[Thor 7,518]

One of my favourite "seemingly random" moments from a Lynch film is the woman gliding past the camera in, I think, a dance or bar scene of WILD AT HEART. While shorter than the scene we're discussing, it's very much of the same ilk.

 

Suffice to say, the 'girl scene' in the latest episode of TWIN PEAKS was my favourite scene of the whole thing. It was so CLASSIC Lynch in everything from the music to the red to the 'absurdity/surrealism' of it, that it actually gave me goosebumps. I actually wanted it to last longer.

[Quintus 5,399]

There's nowt wrong with the fact that you enjoyed that moment and it's great that you projected your feelings onto it in the way you did. Just try not to insult others who didn't do the same in the future. 

 

My favourite "random" and ridiculously long moment from Lynch by far, is Dean Stockwell singing In Dreams. Now that's what I call earned. 

[Thor 7,518]

7 minutes ago, Quintus said:

There's nowt wrong with the fact that you enjoyed that moment and it's great that you projected your feelings onto it in the way you did. Just try not to insult others who didn't do the same in the future. 

 

I think you have been more insulting than I have in this little exchange (I've deliberately avoided your personal remarks), but as I've said before -- your reaction is yours and yours alone. I'm not going to berate you for having it. But maybe....just maybe, there are other ways to approach Lynch than just look at everything in terms of narratives and character motivation and more 'concrete' stuff, as if it were a math equation. Lynch himself has said on numerous occasions that most of what he does is just 'ideas', leaving it up to the audience to inject feelings and meaning into the surrealism of it all.

 

Did you ever see INLAND EMPIRE?