Subject: Re: Lynch - CRITICISM!!!
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary Newell)
Date: 1990-12-03, 18:04
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <1990Dec3.172554.267@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu>, wilson@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu (Peter D. Wilson) writes:
> > In article <28197@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary Newell) writes:
>> > > The scene with naval
>> > > personnel bouncing rubber balls in the GN while a spastic one-armed man
>> > > wiggles in his chair would seem an example of this in my opinion - what
>> > > purpose did those people serve? Did it relate in anyway to the plot? 
> >   This scene has been brought up several times as evidence that TP is
> >   worthless crap.  The basis for the claim is that it has nothing to

I didn't say worhtless crap - my point is that a number of scenes did nothing
to advance the plot - the one above along with various things that dealt with
the murder (why wasn't ronnette offed anyway? - seems strange that Bob/leland
would put a letter under her nail and not just snuff her...)

> >   do with the plot, as you indicate.  This is valid only if one believes
> >   that advancement of plot is the only thing that is important, which I
> >   don't.  Had the scene been done without bouncing balls, the storyline
> >   wouldn't have changed one bit and no argument would have begun about
> >   how the color of their shoes related to WKLP.  With them, Lynch throws
> >   the viewer off guard by doing something totally unpredictable and
> >   totally irrelevant, just like real life.

 Fair enough - but the key to your statement is that scenes which have nothing
to do with the plot are somehow worthwhile - although in the general case I
would agree, in this case, the number of such scenes is large and one
has to question if it is not overkill...

> >   can be said of TP.  The plot in TP is secondary to the character
> >   development and atmosphere.  I watch because of the skill of those
> >   who work on the show to flesh out characters and draw me into a world
> >   that is at times unpredictable.  

But I claim that the characters (many of them at least) are not developed
at all. Remember Donna's bizarre behavior at the jail? What ever became of
that? The characters are often used as simple tools to help create an
image that has nothing to do with the plot - to me that actually works to
make the characters seem even less appealing or "real" than they would have if 
they were actually developed in a linear fashion - not that they should
always act in some particularway, but that they should act in a way which is
consistent with the plot and the social context of twin-peaks.

> >   TP is a world unlike any other on TV.  It isn't perfect, but it
> >   is a lot better than the average show where plot is more important
> >   than character and everything needs to be explained at an elementary
> >   level.

 I used to think this but episodes in the second half of this season have
lead me to believe otherwise. I felt as if the writers made it a point
to explain as much as they could at an elementary level - there really
wasn't anything left as mysterious here. In fact, the sad part is, they
often used the character's dialogue to get certain points about the
plot across - the 12/1 episode did this much too much in my opinion. 
Although I thought the Leland/Bob interview scene was entertaining, I
also thought it was a bit 'forced' at times - it seemd clear to me
that the dialogue was only intended to clear up any confusion amongst
the "average viewing audience" and not really an attempt to advance
the plot or develop the characters.

> >   A movie can have absolutely no plot and still be good, though.

For example? I cannot think of a movie with *no* plot that can
be considered good - strange yes, unique yes, but good? I don't know...


gln