Where I'm at right now, in understanding Twin Peaks, is that it's a bit like Inland Empire in that it does not have a solid unifying theme. I think David Lynch just swung from the hip, and was more concerned with how he felt about a particular scene than how to unify his story. I think a lot of the events in Twin Peaks season 3 have little or nothing to do with the plot. For example, the Audrey scenes. I think they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, nothing at all. I think David Lynch and Sherilyn Fenn were having disagreements about what to do with the Audrey character in season 3, and as a result of their arguing, Lynch put himself into the story as Charlie and warned Sherilyn that he was thinking of discontinuing her story completely. I think Charlie is David Lynch. And that has exactly nothing to do with the rest of the story. I like Charlie constantly telling Audrey that he's tired. I think Lynch was tired of Sherilyn's arguing. I really think Charlie's whole purpose in the season was to express what David Lynch was feeling about Sherilyn. And I think that in almost all of David Lynch's movies he flies by the seat of his pants and doesn't have a unified story in mind. He doesn't comment on what his stuff means because it's all pretty fuzzy in his own mind.
This is a good reading. I find thinking about David Lynch's intentions to be one of the most exhausting elements of serious analysis of Twin Peaks, so I stay away from it altogether. I really try to treat the art as if it fell out of the sky and was just waiting under a bush to be discovered. I work hard to deal with only what's on the screen, though there are some points where I feel that I have to cross that line. Good stuff here, Len. I can't wait to write about Audrey's role and story in The Return. Working with John Thorne has really helped me see things from completely different angles and our show on Audrey is going to impact my reading dramatically.
Where I'm at right now, in understanding Twin Peaks, is that it's a bit like Inland Empire in that it does not have a solid unifying theme. I think David Lynch just swung from the hip, and was more concerned with how he felt about a particular scene than how to unify his story. I think a lot of the events in Twin Peaks season 3 have little or nothing to do with the plot. For example, the Audrey scenes. I think they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, nothing at all. I think David Lynch and Sherilyn Fenn were having disagreements about what to do with the Audrey character in season 3, and as a result of their arguing, Lynch put himself into the story as Charlie and warned Sherilyn that he was thinking of discontinuing her story completely. I think Charlie is David Lynch. And that has exactly nothing to do with the rest of the story. I like Charlie constantly telling Audrey that he's tired. I think Lynch was tired of Sherilyn's arguing. I really think Charlie's whole purpose in the season was to express what David Lynch was feeling about Sherilyn. And I think that in almost all of David Lynch's movies he flies by the seat of his pants and doesn't have a unified story in mind. He doesn't comment on what his stuff means because it's all pretty fuzzy in his own mind.
This is a good reading. I find thinking about David Lynch's intentions to be one of the most exhausting elements of serious analysis of Twin Peaks, so I stay away from it altogether. I really try to treat the art as if it fell out of the sky and was just waiting under a bush to be discovered. I work hard to deal with only what's on the screen, though there are some points where I feel that I have to cross that line. Good stuff here, Len. I can't wait to write about Audrey's role and story in The Return. Working with John Thorne has really helped me see things from completely different angles and our show on Audrey is going to impact my reading dramatically.