Twin Peaks (ABC) TV Show • Page 107

It’s an incredibly well-thought-out theory, and an interesting fan perspective on the series, but at the end of the day that’s all it is. I was definitely glad I watched it though.

 

Its easily the best and most well thought out theory I've seen for the show and I'd be incredibly surprised if he wasn't right about a lot of it.

 

He didn’t completely dismiss Frost. From the jump he said he was simply going to refer to “Lynch” rather than try to parse out whose ideas are which. But also, since Lynch is the one who actually directed the shows/movie (he also says that apparently for s3 they co-wrote it but then Lynch changed a good deal to the end result while Frost went off and wrote the books), and since the entire project is quintessential Lynch, he is working off the assumption that Lynch’s views, both of what the show is fundamentally “about” and in general (eg life, television as a medium), carry massive significance. So that’s what he chose to devote the majority of his time towards

Also to say he dismisses Frost is to imply that there are ideas or interpretations that he overlooks by virtue of this. What would those be? I’ve never heard anyone imply that Frost’s ideas are in any way competing or contradictory with Lynch’s.

 

A large part of Twin Peaks is the mystery itself. To define it is to reduce it (something the video actually covers, at least in regards to revealing Laura's killer), and that’s why the video is painful to watch for me—analyzing each and every bit of mysticism and symbolism portrayed in the show as evidence. It destroys the beauty of the thing.

 

I completely disagree lol. That’s like saying it’s “beauty” comes from being nonsensical, which isn’t the case. The reason it is good is because there is meaning and significance behind what is presented

 

The video literally explains how Lynch never wanted Laura's killer to be revealed. Lynch loves mystery, and HATES explaining the meaning. Watch literally ANY of his movies and interviews where he's asked to explain his intent, and you'll get that.

 

That doesn’t at all mean that there is no meaning, or that Lynch doesn’t want people to understand it. That’s an absurd reading of what Lynch is saying.

 

Lynch has said many times about basically all of his projects that what is “there” to understand is all shown to us. He himself just refuses to hold our hand and literally explain his intentions.

 

Not sure why you're getting so defensive and calling my take "absurd" but I'll play along. Quotes from Lynch himself... Clearly he prefers when his art exists in that "dream space" where meaning is nebulous and there isn't a catch-all interpretation.

“A film or a paining – each thing is its own sort of language and it’s not right to try to say the same thing in words.”

“The language of film, cinema, is the language it was put into, and English language – it’s not going to translate. It’s going to lose.”

“When things are concrete, there’s very few variations and interpretations… but the more abstract the thing gets, the more varied the interpretations. But people still know, inside, what it is for them. And even if they don’t trust their intuition, I always say that if some girl named Sally, she comes out of the theatre, ‘I don’t have a clue what that means,’ she goes over with Bob and Jim to get a cup of coffee. Bob starts talking about what he thinks it is because he knows exactly what it is. He starts talking. Five seconds later, Sally is saying “No, no, no, no. It’s not that,’ and then all these things come out of Sally. So Sally really did know, for herself. That’s the beauty of it. It’s just like life. You see the same things, but you come up with many, many different things as you go along as a detective.”

 

If you take the video as serious gospel about the show, I could see how it wouldn't be fun to watch.

If you take it as just one fan theory among many, many fan theories about Twin Peaks, it's a lot of fun and gives you a cool new perspective through which to think about the show.

At the end of the day, Twin Peaks still means whatever you, the viewer, thinks it means. Regardless of what anyone on the internet says about it.

 

I’m not getting defensive at all, so I have no idea why you’re saying that. And those quotes do not say it is bad for someone to try to interpret the work and present their theory. Again, they simply enforce why Lynch himself refuses to give some sort of definitive explanation. The last quote especially speaks to the value of people actually talking through their ideas - that it helps others reflect and understand their own views

 

my favorite thing about Lynch’s work is I very often can’t quite properly articulate what I think it means (or what it means to me, I should prob say). it’s not that it doesn’t make sense, it’s that it makes sense in a way that I can feel more than I can explain.

 

I think this is the gripe for many people tbh. The reason they want to dismiss it is exactly because they find it so convincing lol. Like I can’t recall anyone in this thread really going into how the theory is actually wrong. So instead of of simply accepting it as a valuable contribution to the world’s understanding of TP, they try to dismiss it outright on the basis that somehow Lynch’s art is now fundamentally different from all other art ever

 

I haven’t watched it yet, don’t know if I will but I am gonna watch his Mulholland Drive video first and go from there

 

This is what I'm getting at, thank you for understanding. The 4.5 video is fine as a fan theory, but its relentless translation of different symbols morphs Lynch's output into language. It dilutes the impact you'd get as a viewer, like giving someone the Sparknotes to a classic novel. Or a better comparison--interpreting a dream after its passed.

Also I was saying you (@Marx&Recreation) were getting defensive because you called my reading "absurd," which seems to go against your last point about people talking through their ideas. My interpretation of Lynch's work is still my interpretation, even if it's "there is no one meaning."

As for debating the content of the theory itself, I've made this point a few times already--but I think recognizing TP's thesis as Film vs. Art is greatly reducing its scope in the way Lynch posits Fear vs. Love in the first two seasons. I think he's evoking something far more metaphysical than "MOVIES RULE TV SUX!!!" (though I do think the show does touch on these elements). The theory does go a little bit into consumerism and the worship of violence and whatnot, and I think that's closer to what Lynch is getting at--but even still, I feel there's something deeper he's saying regarding the self, God, and the purpose of existence.

 

Sorry, I simply meant that you were taking Lynch’s refusal to explain his art to an absurd conclusion - that he doesn’t want even the viewers to try to make sense of it.

 

Oh yeah, not at all. I think he revels in viewers trying to make sense of it. That said, if there is a singular meaning, I don't think Lynch even has the words to articulate it.

 

I think the theory’s basis that TP is “about” TV *is* the gateway that Lynch uses to speaking to other things. Television, especially during the time the show originally came out, was growing more and more sensational and feeding off our collective psyche. It’s not just that it helps create bad art, but it helps create bad people.

Hence, the theory posits that once you understand that the show is “about” TV, the “real” messages (about consumerism, violence, etc. etc.) become much more clear. TP isn’t simply a meta-critique of television. The meta-critique of television is how TP *gets to* everything else

 

See, I like the way you described that more than the video does itself. Much clearer and allows for a deeper comprehension of the themes beyond just TV vs. Film.

 

The video isn't for people who haven't seen Twin Peaks though, it's something extra for people who are huge fans and likely already have their own thoughts/feelings and interpretations of the show. It's a theory on what the original idea Lynch had was and how he may have formed the show. I think that's an interesting thing to think about and doesn't stop the content from being open to other interpretations.

The video goes into a ton of different things the show is about though, not just tv vs film. That feels more reductionist of the 4.5 hr video than it does of Twin Peaks lol.

 

I watched the whole damn thing and felt it was limiting my interpretation of TP, and it’s one of my favorite shows of all time. I thought the theory’s symbolic interpreting of every last screencap took out the magic (for me), and didn’t leave space for other perspectives—felt very honed in on applying all the show’s mysterious imagery to his thesis. I get how it could make others’ watching experience greater, but definitely not for me.

 

Yeah, just feels like that kind of thing isn't for you. To me I just find it very interesting to think about how he might have made the show, doesn't change what the show itself means to me or what I can take from it. I now can see the whole show in a completely new and awesome way though which has only increased my appreciation for it.

I always like to watch other peoples thoughts/theorys and explanations whenever I've already come up with my own ideas about something. Then I can enjoy other peoples perspectives and get even more out of something.

 

I feel like you're doing this to yourself though, tbh. Like, of course it's honed in and applying all the show's imagery to his thesis, that's the whole point of fan theories in general. Of course it doesn't leave space for other perspectives-this is his perspective and the one who personally thinks is "correct". But we as the viewers don't need to accept it as such if we don't want to. These things are just features of any fan theory on any piece of media ever. It's all theory and thought-experimentation. It only has as much credence as the viewer gives it.

 

That's true. He's obviously trying to be as persuasive as possible, and utilizing every bit of information he has available to serve that point. It's tough though, because for me a massive part of Lynch's appeal is the dreamlike / mysterious space he inhabits--how his work raises more thematic questions than answering them. There is a part of me that feels "finding the key to unlock Twin Peaks" is antithetical to the show's purpose, to shut off the logical part of your brain and let its current take you to a more gut-trusting (perhaps simpler?) intuition of meaning. To be "like the dreamer who dreams, and then lives inside the dream"-obviously the follow-up question holds true, since we're theorizing now. All that said, I think there's something weirdly smug about the guy himself, and maybe its just me. I think it's a cool theory though, and impressive as hell to make all those links (a lot of which I am down with, but not all).

 

I didnt watch much of that video, partially because of the aforementioned Lynch impression but mostly because I dont like the idea of attaching meaning to the entirety of Twin Peaks. I might be projecting some things on to Lynch, but I think a lot of things he adds to his work is more feeling based than logic based. Like, based on reading about how he made Inland Empire, a lot was included not because it had some significance to the larger meaning of the movie, but just because the feeling that it carried pointed toward something. Like its more about putting the audience in a certain headspace than conveying a specific idea. I think applying or trying to find a definition for something like that will always fall short.