Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: Re: Various points gleaned from reviewing the TP extant TP episodes
From: adamk@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Adam Kao)
Date: 1990-05-04, 14:13
Reply-to: email@example.com (Adam Kao)
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Jon Conrad) writes:
> >In article <2333@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> firstname.lastname@example.org (Adam Kao) writes:
>> >>I think Lynch is too creative to use a random red herring (who cares
>> >>if Laura has a pet cat?)
> >Yes, Lynch does to drop hints that pay off later. He also loves to drop
> >in things that have no significance at all, just because he likes them.
> >And let's not leave Mark Frost out of this; he's had a little something
> >to do with steering the series too.
>> >>If Lynch bothered to put it on camera, then it's related to the
>> >>current story. Have faith in Lynch; he's too smart to be random.
> >This seems naive. This kind of "Lynch is God and will do everything
> >just the way I would like it to be, amen" attitude ignores Lynch's very
> >real and specific gifts. He's wonderful at atmosphere, mystery,
> >undefined suspense, and that kind of thing . . .
> > . . . Yes,
> >he IS smart; but he is also random, when it suits him to be. Can't we
> >all agree that a number of elements are in this series because they're
Wait, I guess I didn't make myself clear. Although I said that Lynch
doesn't do things for no purpose, my idea of a "purpose" is not just
"in order to advance the plot." I understand that other good purposes
include maintaining atmosphere or suspense, providing character
insight, satirizing soap-opera cliches, and miscellaneous "fun".
Now consider writing "Kitty got a new collar" on a diary page which
appears on camera. Someone gave the opinion that this was a red
herring, designed to confuse us and hence unrelated to the plot. In
other words, it was a throw away line which we would have been better
off not seeing.
That would be no fun.
My opinion is that this detail hints at Laura's involvement with
prostitution. This would accomplish several purposes:
(1) Provide insight into Laura's character.
(2) Foreshadowing. When the truth comes out, we will say "of course!"
(3) Confuse people until the truth comes out.
Isn't this more fun? Don't you think Lynch is capable of this?
Granted Lynch wants to confuse us, but scribbling meaningless phrases
is the *CHEAPEST* way of doing this (I see it in introductory creative
writing courses all the time). It's more satisfying, more elegant,
more FUN when a phrase (or detail) is confusing on the surface, but
makes perfect sense when viewed in a different light. Lynch is the
master of "a different light".
> >Lynch picked somebody out of the blue to be the killer in the European
> >print of TWIN PEAKS, just because he looked at somebody and got an idea.
> >If that isn't random, what is?
Lynch did not play eeny meeny miney moe with the workers on the set.
He saw a stagehand, _and_he_liked_his_look_, so he brought him in.
Lynch takes advantage of chance and coincidence, but only when it
serves his purpose(s). That's not randomness, that's serendipity.
It takes significant effort to script and film every scene. There's
plenty of time in the process to think about what's happening and
generate creative details. There is NOT enough time to waste on
making up irrelevant details. Most creative people invest so much
time and effort in their creations that they think about every last
detail, asking themselves again and again, "why am I putting this in?"
"To confuse the audience" is not an acceptable answer. "To have fun"
is certainly an acceptable answer. I hope the difference is clear.