I Disagree with David Lynch

everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-twin-peaks-revival

Twin Peaks fever has taken hold for the first time in 26 years. The original series is being celebrated, re-analyzed, dissected, and is sourcing all manner of “listicles” for “best episodes,”  “scariest moments,” “favorite characters,” etc. Suffice it to say, interest in the new season airing on Showtime this Sunday, May 21st at 9 PM EST is high.

But amidst the feverish interest in the new series are two perspectives I find troubling, which impact the show’s lasting legacy and 27 years of fandom. I must defend Twin Peaks season two and the story of the series as a whole.

The first wrongheaded perspective is codifying Twin Peaks as a cult show. It’s revisionist history and it demeans the show’s legacy. It’s certainly true that since it’s been off of the air only the hard core fans have remained invested in the series, but when the show was airing live everyone watched. Not just a rabid, cultish few. Everyone talked about Twin Peaks around the “water cooler” (whatever that was…).

I challenge this idea mostly because classifying Twin Peaks as a “cult show” isn’t accurate. It twists the truth and turns potential future viewers away. When Twin Peaks was hot, it was sizzling and everyone was watching it. Recent reflections on the series have revealed that even state leaders like President George H.W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth were enamored with the story of the murdered prom queen and the mystery of who killed her. Rocky Horror Picture Show, my dear The Big Lebowski, and heck even Firefly are cult works. By contrast, Twin Peaks was a national phenomenon.

The second and more pervasive perspective is “Season 2 of Twin Peaks went off the rails.” I’m distilling a lot of criticism into one sentence for simplicity, but bear with me.

Season 1 is universally beloved. It’s tightly plotted, engrossing television that, to this day, still manages to astound with its peculiar dream imagery, emotional soundtrack, gorgeous visuals both in locations and in set design, and outrageous characters. Despite taking place in 1990 (1989?), it feels timeless. There’s a reason for this, of course. Creators David Lynch and Mark Frost crafted the genre-bending, transformational pilot movie and the subsequent 7 episodes together. It’s true that other writers and directors were involved, but the “bones” of the story were assembled by Lynch and Frost.

It’s inaccurate to say that Lynch and Frost were uninvolved in Season 2 and I wish that particular legend would die already. Even Brad Dukes’ great oral history of Twin Peaks dispels this notion. What really happened is more mundane — the first season was a limited season event and season two was picked up for a full 22 episodes and it needed to be run more “traditionally.” In short, the machinery of TV bureaucracy intruded. Lynch and Frost couldn’t just secret themselves away and design the whole season. TV didn’t work that way in 1990. Now, folks like Vince Gilligan (who walks firmly in Lynch and Frost’s footsteps), of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul fame, can develop a season from start to finish albeit with more concise 13 episode counts.

But all of that is beside the point. Despite the added pressure of success and the winding maze of 1990 era TV bureaucracy, Twin Peaks season 2 should not be minimized as lesser work. Indeed, I argue that what season 2 ultimately did was build the world far beyond just the murder of the seemingly innocent homecoming queen.

There are some who say the whole season is rubbish, but much of the criticism is leveled at many of the episodes following the reveal of Laura Palmer’s killer. Some is certainly fair. Let’s start there.

David Lynch (and Mark Frost to a lesser extent) have long lamented pressure from the network to reveal Laura Palmer’s killer. Lynch has argued that it killed “the golden goose.” I’ve never understood this, much less agreed with it. In other descriptions of Twin Peaks, Lynch has described Laura’s murder as the doorway into the strange, bucolic town full of secrets. If that’s true, then once we’re in the town, we’re in. Laura’s murder being solved should be immaterial. You could make the case that people would have abandoned the show anyway after awhile because they’d feel strung along with no answers in sight. In fact, some viewers were already leaving over the feeling of being strung along during early season two!

But from a story perspective Laura’s murder was merely the first layer of the onion. Once you peel it back, you could reveal greater truths and deeper mysteries (which is what happened!). The criticisms I will agree with about the second season have to do more with the poor transition from Laura’s story to the next big story and some of the subplot choices the show pursued. But simply solving Laura’s murder shouldn’t have ended the show when exposing her killer opened the door into the shows deeper mythology which was (and is) rich with even more story potential, hence the fact that we’re getting more show 27 years later!

Following Laura’s murder, the show should have transitioned directly into the Windom Earle story line. Or, perhaps, maybe just one episode of transition and denouement instead of three or four. I’m not proposing anything new or insightful here, I think this idea is almost universally shared. And, to me, that suggests that the late Season Two stories have merit and are good and the slow build to get there were the real problems. I certainly think the Cooper vs. Windom Earle and Hunt for Owl Cave stories were very strong and breathed some new life into the show, further bending the genre into which Twin Peaks falls.

I’m also not willing to let David Lynch and Mark Frost off of the hook for these Season Two matters. Many of the ideas sewn into those stories originated with David and Mark. Brad Dukes’ book, for example, noted that putting Josie into the drawer pull originated with David Lynch. He also appeared as Gordon Cole in audio and in person. If he didn’t like what he was seeing from the material and the approach, why didn’t he say something or do something? Mark Frost apparently did a writing pass over every script; one or both of the creators was involved in every story the show produced. Lynch, of course, famously reasserted himself in the amazing season two finale (if you don’t know, Lynch used very little of what was scripted for the Black Lodge sequence at the end). But why wait? Some Lynch sycophants won’t like this, since he “walks on water,” but these questions deserve answers especially when he piles on season two as well (as recently as today!). I say, “Own it.”

Putting the leadership questions aside, it’s also worth putting things into their historical context. Twin Peaks season two, particularly the post Laura Palmer episodes, aired and were preempted by the Gulf War. For a deeply serialized show like Twin Peaks, that was a fatal blow. Add to that the show was moved to Saturday nights–hardly a good night for cultivating a TV audience. Original fans, even diehards, likely had a tough time finding the show. But even if they did, with huge gaps in episodes, it was harder to pick up the threads from previous episodes. And it was 1991. There weren’t reruns like there are now and no way to find missed episodes unless you taped them.

I point this out because I’m a “second-generation” (third?) Twin Peaks fan. I was introduced to the show in a college course about transformational TV dramas and subsequently watched it on DVD. I was able to watch the show one after the other. A pre-Netflix binge, if you will. While the post-Laura Palmer episodes are certainly different, in that they lack the central plot thread (at least initially), I still enjoyed them. And if you watched them in close sequencing, without weeks or months long gaps, they hold together much better. I can certainly understand fans’ frustrations in 1991 about watching Ben Horne reenact the Civil War in his office or James mope around with a melodramatic married woman while not advancing the main story much about Windom Earle, the missing Major Briggs, or where BOB had gone. But revisiting these episodes in a more streamlined fashion is enjoyable and easier to pick up the thread.

By the way, I thought the “Ben-as-a-Civil-War-general” story was funny. Ludicrous in the way only Twin Peaks could do. Josie’s story ramped up and, as a result, Sheriff Truman became a more well-rounded character with more to do. I thought the story about Jean Renault conspiring to get Cooper drummed out of the FBI and ultimately killed was good. Renault has a particularly good quote in his final episode:

“Before you came here, Twin Peaks was a simple place. My brothers sold drugs to truck-drivers and teenagers. One-Eyed Jack’s welcomed curious tourists and businessmen. Quiet people lived quiet lives. Then a pretty girl dies. And you arrive. Everything changes. My brother Bernard is shot and left to die in the woods. A grieving father smothers my surviving brother with a pillow. Arson, kidnapping. More death and destruction. Suddenly the quiet people here are no longer quiet. Their simple dreams have become a nightmare. Maybe you brought the nightmare with you. And maybe, it will die with you.”

It encapsulates quite nicely why I think the post-Laura Palmer episodes have merit. Before Laura died, all of the town’s secrets lay dormant with no one particularly interested in exposing them, if that was even possible. Laura’s death was a gateway into these secrets and the deeper mysteries waiting in the woods and solving her murder did not put the cap back on the bottle–it was broken open and could not be resealed. That’s the beauty of TV storytelling, iterative stories that build off of what’s come before and the resolution of Laura’s murder and what happened in the aftermath were worthwhile stories. Poorly executed, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the story should not have been told.

I’m defensive about season two because all we have had for years is the episodes that were made. No comic books. No further sequels. Just these episodes and a movie. Beyond that, I loved the story of how Dale Cooper became a town deputy and embedded himself deeper into the town and it’s people. His friendship with Sheriff Truman, Andy, and Hawk grew. And he wanted to buy property in Twin Peaks. To me, it was the natural evolution of Cooper’s character that he had completely and utterly fallen in love with Twin Peaks. The real love story of Twin Peaks isn’t Cooper and Audrey or Ed and Norma, it’s Cooper and the town itself.

Coming back to the main point, many of the things people remember about Twin Peaks originated in Season 2. Iconic moments, characters, and stories: the Giant, Laura Palmer’s secret diary, white-haired Leland, Denise Bryson, the white and black lodges, Josie in the drawer knob, “How’s Annie?,” and more. It’s just become fashionable to dump on Twin Peaks season two so people do it and I’d venture to say that many who do haven’t seen the episodes they’re trashing in a while (if at all).

After 27 years (12 for me), the only content fans have had from the world of Twin Peaks are 29 episodes and a movie. We’ve lived with those stories for years, theorized about them, debated them, dreamed about them, wondered what would happen next. We may like some stories more than we like others, yes; that’s true of anything. But those stories are all Twin Peaks.

We can lament that David Lynch didn’t direct more episodes, but the fact of the matter is: he didn’t. Episodes that are probably well loved were written and directed by people who are not David Lynch. Mark Frost directed the season one finale quite capably. Lesli Linka Glatter, Caleb Deschanel, Duwayne Dunham, Tim Hunter… all great directors who brought life to the stories and characters. The show was orchestrated by all of these people, not just David Lynch and Mark Frost.

When the new show continues, it will be guided firmly by David Lynch and Mark Frost. More power to them. I can’t wait to see what they have in store for us. But I do hope that 27 years of stories, because that’s what they really are, are not cast aside casually. It’s been 27 years in real life, perhaps just 25 years in the show, but life moves on. I get it and that’s license to forget about some things. I really don’t care much about the pine weasel or Little Nicky all grown up, but it would be nice to learn if Ghostwood was ever developed. Does Josie still haunt drawer pulls in the Great Northern Hotel? Is that what happened to the Log Lady’s husband? Is Ben Horne really Donna Hayward’s father? What, if anything, did Major Briggs do with the communication from Windom Earle via Sarah Palmer (“I’m in the Black Lodge with Dale Cooper.”)?

Twin Peaks is the sum of its 30 parts, counting the movie, too. I’m a completionist. I’ve never been able to say, “Well, Star Trek seasons one and two are really great, but season three is terrible so I don’t count it.” No. The work is the work. Frankly, I think it’s a fun bit of fandom to analyze and criticize the best and worst parts of a series. To stick with my Star Trek analogy, The Next Generation season one is, to put it kindly, not it’s best. But it’s not like the events of that season are ignored because the episodes didn’t turn out as well as we would have liked.

Life is that way, too. There are things we are proud of in our lives. There are things we wish we had not done or that we had done them differently. But all of our experiences make up who we are now. We can choose to ignore some parts of our pasts, but those things happened and they affect us regardless.

I say accept Twin Peaks the same way. It is the sum of its parts, some good, some Evelyn and Little Nicky. But soon, there will be more parts and that cannot be anything but exciting.

Enjoy your coffee and pie this weekend, folks.

REVIEW: The Secret History of Twin Peaks (Spoilers)

secrettp

I love Twin Peaks.

I was too young to enjoy the show when it originally aired in 1990-1991. I was too busy watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies. My first exposure to the show was eleven years ago at college. I took a class at Syracuse University called “The Modern TV Drama: 1980 to Present” taught by a quasi-famous pop culture expert, Professor Robert Thompson. We met once a week on Thursdays for two hours and we watched and discussed the first shows to treat audiences like they had any intelligence, Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, Moonlighting… etc.

We spent three classes on Twin Peaks. I’m not going to recap all the reasons why you should watch it; I’ve already done so. But I’ll say this: the pilot for Twin Peaks is something everyone should see. It’s TV history. It changed everything. If you like Game of Thrones, Westworld, Lost, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad… (more!), thank David Lynch and Mark Frost. Professor Thompson showed it to us and I was intrigued by the melodious and indulgent opening credits and gripped at once by the series’ opening images of a mysterious, beautiful woman looking at herself in the mirror and a rumpled man going out to fish and making a horrific discovery—a dead body wrapped in plastic.

I sought out Twin Peaks DVDs and ravenously devoured the show. At the end, I made the horrific discovery that my progenitors made fifteen years earlier: the show ended with a hell of a cliffhanger. ABC cancelled the series after its second season. The “follow-up” movie Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me is actually an R-rated prequel covering the last seven days of the victim’s, Laura Palmer, life.

For 25 years, the original fans of Twin Peaks languished until 2014 when it was announced that David Lynch and Mark Frost were reviving the series on Showtime and would also deliver a tie-in book about the town. The series has since completed filming and is slated to arrive “sometime” in 2017. But first, Mark Frost’s book The Secret History of Twin Peaks arrived on October 18th. This is the first new content in this story in 25 years and to say I was excited to read it is an understatement of the highest order. There was also an audio version announced featuring some of the show’s actors voicing their original characters as well as a smattering of others.

Originally titled The Secret Lives of Twin Peaks, the book’s press release said it would “…[reveal] what has happened to the people of that iconic fictional town since we last saw them 25 years ago.” This book does not do that.

Instead, The Secret History of Twin Peaks is an epistolary novel which means it’s told through letters, articles, memos, and commentary by a couple of people. Essentially, the “book” is a dossier found at a crime scene in July 2016 which the FBI is investigating. Could this be a plot point in the coming season? No clue, but it’s exciting that there are new mysteries to consume. FBI Assistant Director Gordon Cole has assigned an agent to review the tome and discover the identity of the “Archivist” who put it together.

In summary, I enjoyed the book. I was riveted. The “story” begins in the “real world”  explaining where the dossier was found and setting the stage before diving headlong into a deep historical narrative concerning Lewis and Clark’s exploration in the Northwest Territory (Twin Peaks is in northwest Washington near the Canadian border in the present sovereign borders). It winds through early American history, secret societies, conspiracies, and myths of Native Americans and the early North American peoples featuring some interesting linkages to the opaque mythology of the show.

However, the title of the book is something of a misnomer. While Twin Peaks and the history of (some of) its characters factor into the story, much of the novel follows an ancillary character from the show, who has been given a rigorous backstory more grand than his minor appearances on the show would indicate, and his adventures outside of the town. Major historical figures appear throughout the story and the scope of Twin Peaks’ connections to the wider world are expanded upon in ways that were only vague hints towards the close of the show’s final season and partially in the film. It’s a testament to Mark Frost’s writing and the vivid tapestry he weaves that all of this information is gripping and holds attention even though, for large portions of the story, the links to Twin Peaks are marginal at best.

When Twin Peaks and its characters, or their parents and grandparents, are in focus the story is damn fine. We learn dense backstory and interesting tidbits about the major families who founded the town and who are, unsurprisingly, related to most of the main characters from the show. One character, Josie Packard, whose backstory was largely shrouded in mystery on the series, receives a good bit of coverage and all major gaps are filled in. Josie’s history is not likely to get a lot of attention in the new season, for reasons fans will understand, so it’s nice to get closure on that thread. There are a few other examples of this, some more interesting than others, but I’ll let readers discover those on their own.

But let’s face it: the real reason Twin Peaks fans wanted to get their hands on this book is to find out what happened after the cataclysmic events of the series’ final episode. But unfortunately, if that’s all you came to find, you will be disappointed. The events covered in the book go just barely past the end of the show* and only fleeting answers are provided. But one of the finale’s major events (not the one you really want to know about) is addressed in clear detail and provides interesting, if not unsurprising, resolution. In the course of addressing that hanging thread, another character whose fate was up in the air is unceremoniously declared alive and well with no mention of his own violent encounter.

Which leads me to a subject about the book, which is already an Internet point of debate: there are a number of glaring historical and Twin Peaks plot inconsistencies. In some interviews, Mark Frost has addressed this in a couple of ways: 1. He has noted that the nature of the novel is one where the narrator(s) are not always reliable, and 2. A cryptic response “All will be revealed in time…” Let me address these in order.

Regarding the “unreliable narrator,” that would not explain certain incorrect important historical dates. It also would not explain characters who should have had direct information on events giving conflicting information. The most obvious and harmless example to mention is a retelling of what happened with the Big Ed, Norma, and Nadine love triangle. I won’t recount it here, but the book directly conflicts with what the show told us happened. It’s particularly egregious because the story was told in the season two premiere, which was written by David Lynch and Mark Frost (the author), in a funny and memorable scene that’s easily one of my favorites which you can enjoy here as a matter of fact. There are several other examples like the wrong date for the moon landing. There are also a number of stunning omissions** such as no mention made of the White or Black Lodges (directly), no mention of Annie Blackburn, “blink and you’ll miss them” entries about Windom Earle, and a handful more. For non-fans, this is gobbledygook, but for people who have watched and re-watched the series many times over the past two and a half decades it is clear and it’s troubling.

There might be hope, though. Frost’s response that “all will be revealed…” hints at what some of us have already suspected about this book: that it is, in of itself, a mystery to be solved. The changes and the omissions may be deliberate obfuscation by the “Archivist” (who is identified eventually). Or maybe something happened to the Dossier after the “Archivist” parted with it (maybe not intentionally?). In fact, given what I’ve noted about the Big Ed story above, it’s hard to believe that Mark Frost would have been that careless. I would have hoped that he reviewed the series again before diving back into the new season and this book. Even if he just skimmed some episodes, I would hope that he’d have paid close attention to the ones he and Lynch directly generated. So, it’s difficult to swallow that he just screwed it up or simply wanted to retcon it. It seems likely (or maybe I’m desperate to believe) that Frost made the plot changes on purpose because they are obvious and fans would notice. Perhaps they point the way to some hidden truth. Fans on Reddit are already pouring through the text to see if there is some kind of embedded code—I love the Internet, by the way.

Setting aside any plot or historical errors for the moment, The Secret History of Twin Peaks is an engrossing read. It’s new Twin Peaks content for goodness sake! Two years ago, no one thought we would ever see new Twin Peaks anything let alone a novel and a new season (seasons??). There was clearly a lot of energy put into the book. It’s also exciting to think that maybe the items I initially perceived as continuity errors might point the way towards some hidden truths that a plain reading of the text doesn’t reveal.

Since I also listened to the audio book, I’ll say that the voice cast is quite good. Annie Wersching of 24 and Bosch fame provided the narration for the FBI agent investigating the dossier and I wish she was a listed cast member for the new season. She did a great job here and she’s a good actress otherwise. Perhaps, one of the many actresses listed in that 217 deep cast list will be portraying the character she voiced? I wish David Lynch had voiced Gordon Cole as I was expecting some yelling at the start and didn’t get it, but I suppose his time is better spent in the editing bay getting us a damn trailer for the new season. Otherwise, Len Cariou narrated as the “Archivist” and the guy should read all my books for me—he had a rich timbre that lent itself to the material well.

All in all, if you’re at all a fan of Twin Peaks, this book is essential reading (or listening) for you. It’s a great appetizer for us to snack on while we wait for the main course coming next year. Pick it up and read slowly; 2017 will be here before we know it.

 

*Given that the initial press release said the book would cover what happened to the people in Twin Peaks over the last 25 years and offer a “deeper glimpse into the central mystery that was only touched on in the original series,” I wonder when that approach changed. Or if the publisher simply used provocative language to promote the book’s plot and Frost never had any intention of doing that? Some of the Twin Peaks fan sites have done interviews with Frost, but they’re so busy falling over to complement him and gush over the show that they haven’t asked about this significant discrepancy in marketing.

**I wonder if Lynch asked Frost not to put some topics in the book like Annie and The Black Lodge, directly, because he would prefer they only be addressed on screen. Purely a guess, but it might be a “real world” reason why those rather important topics aren’t mentioned at all.

Viral Twin Peaks Marketing?

Cooper and the gang use the

Cooper and the gang use the “Tibetan Method” to solve a mystery.

This afternoon a veteran editor at “The Twin Peaks Experience” posted a link to a site: http://doublerdiner.squarespace.com/ which appears to be a restaurant site for the fictional “Double R Diner” from Twin Peaks.

The only link on the page “Menu,” actually goes to http://www.playinglynch.com/. This site only contains a clock, which as of this writing is counting down from 7 days, 14 hours. Will the long-awaited Twin Peaks season three trailer appear in 7 days and 14 hours??

However, there is an interesting detail on the “Double R Diner” site. It notes the diner is famous for its “Huckleberry” pies. While I believe that kind of pie was served on Twin Peaks, even casual fans of the series know that cherry pies were the menu item in demand (that, and coffee of course). Is this detail significant? Maybe this site isn’t related to Twin Peaks officially and is merely a fan attempt for attention. Or, if real, could the change be deliberate to indicate some kind of change in the town over the past 25 years?

As a huge fan of Lost, the spiritual successor to Twin Peaks, I didn’t realize how much I missed trying to figure out TV mysteries. I’m excited to see where this return to Twin Peaks takes us.