I think the core 'Lynchian' experience is when you kind of understand what's going on, and at the same time you don't. Mystery and explanation at the same time, intertwined.
That's what makes his art so great. I think his target audience is actually our sub-conscious minds because he knows when we begin to understand things on that level everything else is germane and connected.
One may think the core experience of water is getting wet...another just swallowing it to live... yet scientists have analyzed water enough to know it’s two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen and can explain its nature beyond some subjective experience. None of these ideas are incorrect except thinking anything has some one core experience it must be.
@@lookbovine Lol, real mysterious like that aren’t real. Unfortunately in life, things only happen once, and in one way. The truth. If you believe there are multiple truths, thats on you. But I think we are all looking through the same idea, but what we see stand out is based on the individual.
@Stv 83 So it’s definitely what you say it is, but it’s definitely not what I say it is, because art is definitely not definite. It’s so much fun when people use their contradictory ideas to tell others to change. Just watch the damn video so you can get in on the joke and stop acting so childishly contradictory.
TP's 4-hr opus is an external confirmation of many of my own prior intuitions and connections, and more. It is a decoder-ring that I knew we'd get sooner or later. Nice that it only took 2 yrs since the series' completion :)...Oh, the power of the internet! I was 17-18 when it aired, and though I missed FWWM in the theater, I rented it several times in the 90s. Back in the day "YOUuuu stOLe th' cORRN!" and "I'm in the Black Lodge with DaleCooper/I've been waiting for YOU" were the main bits that refused to get outta my head.
I decided that I wouldn't go further than ten comments into the subject matter. I had stopped at yours. Kermit The Frog wasn't on my mind, just his very annoying portrayal or interpretation of the quotations that he is using. Still, Peace and stay well, everybody
Regarding the whole Frost/Lynch thing, I've always felt like Frost was the guy coming up with an 'in universe' mythology to support the meta stuff that Lynch wanted to be doing in terms of symbology and abstractions.
ya I think this dude's metatheory is legit, but it sits over the actual in universe structure of everything. When the in universe can't explain certain things, you understand them in terms of the meta.
Agreed. That is why Frost wrote a book that explained what characters had been doing and Lynch gave us odd cool vignettes with loose structure. I like Frost’s book and Lynch’s vignettes.
@@LeFruFru exactly this. lynch's meta shit is what Twin Peaks is ABOUT, but frost's books and lore is what HAPPENS in twin peaks. i think there is value in analyzing the show from both a subtextual, thematic standpoint and a purely plot oriented standpoint. part of what makes it so good, imo.
There needs to be a text for the subtext to live beneath. I agree that Mark seems to be very excited about the text of Twin Peaks. Even after all these videos emphasizing the Lynch contributions I don’t think they’d fly without the grounding from Frost. There’s a balance to be found there as well. I would say my one criticism of season three is it does feel like its more subtext than text. I’m honestly not disinterested in Mark’s interpretation of what is happening in season three.
@@phillosmaster393 the books never contradict lynch's vision. part of the partnership of L / F during the return definitely demands balance (similar to the themes of the show). i like to view the books (the missing pieces / final dossier) as a companion piece to the show. without both you don't get the whole idea.
Two things: 1- I think the “What time is it?” line from The Return finally is also a reference to the “What time is it?” line from FWWM where one agent tricks the other into spilling coffee into his lap. We as the audience are being jolted awake from the dream. 2- I think Dougies journey of luck is supposed to show us how boring the manufactured good fortune of TV can be if not balanced w tension. That wishing everything would just fall into place for our characters robs the story of substance.
re your 2 - I definitely think it was a direct attack on part of the audience by Lynch, a comment on the simplistic mind set of the mainstream ABC audience who think they know what they want, until the get it.
Dougie's story is "boring" because there is not a lot of conflict, nothing pushing against him, everything simply works. Is that what you REALLY want out of a story or for a character, though? That saccharine happiness has to be balanced with something, just like that bitter darkness has to be balanced with some creamer.
For me, the best part about the original Explained video was that it attempted to actually find some higher meaning from the show beyond just unravelling the events of the show. Most of the videos here on TH-cam about Twin Peaks, while they may dive into the metafiction on occasion, stick to attempting to unravel the actual mysteries of the show. Making sense of the strangeness with the timeline, figuring out who Judy is, getting the lodges in order. On TH-cam at least this really is the pinnacle of a dive into the metafictional aspects of the show, regardless of whether or not you believe the interpretation is valid. Personally, I can concur with the sentiment that certain associations made within the first video seem to be stretched, but on the other hand so much of it seems to slot right into place. I don't think it's perfect, but the video really is the perfect springboard into trying to understand the show for yourself on a symbolic level, organizing metafictional associations in a way that's on par with university level symbolic analysis, boiled down for us mortals.
I agree and I’ve really loved watching his deep dive into the show. And even if everything he’s saying is correct and he got the exact explanation down to a T, it still doesn’t change how wonderfully weird, absurd, emotional, and fantastic the show is. If anything, it’s a testament to Lynch’s talent that he could take something rather “obvious” and turn it into what he did.
I agree. Sometimes I wonder if there could be a decent amount of confirmation bias with his interpretation, but at the same time I think it makes a lot of sense too. I rewatched the entire series after watching the explainer and the show still sucked me in even as I tried to view it with the lens Twin Perfect offered. There are a lot of mysteries you can still try to pick apart for yourself, and his video gives you the tools to do it. In a certain sense, the explanation can make the idea seem smaller, but it also makes it feel a whole lot bigger too.
I agree that there is an interesting two-level approach to understanding Twin Peaks: the *first* is a surface-level analysis of how to make sense of the story. In this, we try to understand where Major Briggs has been, who Judy is, what’s happened to Audrey, why Ben Horne keeps hearing a mysterious harmonic sound, etc. Trying to understand these things is certainly not shallow and it’s a valid story in itself with incredible complexity and interweaving themes and harmonies. The *second* level to Twin Peaks is what our broadcaster here has done in trying to understand the meaning of the show itself as a complex mirror of the complexities of television, empathy, audience fatigue, and so on. It’s an interesting fact that we can, for ourselves, have a view of the meaning of the story and a view of the meaning of the show that are almost entirely independent of each other. It’s brilliant and thanks to our broadcaster here, an idea I’m not sure I would have realized any time soon. There’s so much complexity to this.
Bulaba Jones and really that’s how a lot of things are. Tons of movies and TV shows have underlying meanings and the plot and characters are all metaphors used to convey the overall message. Like Star Trek, Bladerunner, LOTR, Chronicles of Narnia, etc.
I sort of understand when people say that "he stretches things", but not in the sense that he is trying hard to confirm his hypothesis but simply in the sense that he really says a lot of things in 4 hours. I honestly cannot possibly remember every single thing he said, but here are the elements of his interpretation which deeply resonate with me. (1) The explanation of the Monica Bellucci dream: it comes early in his 4 hours video and, to me, it is spot on. Believe it or not, I actually interpreted that sequence in exactly the same way. I told to myself: «Hold on! That's not an actress playing a character called "Monica Bellucci". That's the real Monica Bellucci, who lives in Paris». (2) Cooper's superimposed face in the Part 17 of the Return: he never left the red room, he is the dreamer and, since he is us, we are the dreamers. By the way, the title of Part 17, in which Bob is killed in a sort of 'tulpa' Twin Peaks show, is "The past dictates the future". (3) The ocean of unbounded consciousness: this is a well known concept in Transcendental Meditation.
I’m old enough to remembering sitting down in the floor at my dad’s house to watch twin peaks. I really have enjoyed your thoughts on this show, and, they have helped me to appreciate the 3rd season more. I think I may be in that minority, as the 3rd season felt, well, wrong to me. I never could explain it, but it just didn’t feel right. I think I may have subconsciously picked up on some of this because I never really saw, and maybe it was my age being 12 in 1990, the supernatural aspects as being actual otherworldly supernatural. To me they were unexplainable, not like a spirit in the closet, but just some kind of mystery that felt right, but always just out of grasp of an explanation. Being at the age I was, it just made everything in the show have this air of wonder about it. To my young mind, obviously not having some intellectual understanding of the surreal, so much of the show just felt out of my ability to understand; but not in an uncomfortable way; it just felt like my life at the time; that young so many things were there, I just didn’t understand them, but they were no less enjoyable for it. I could just accept that I couldn’t explain. I guess in the end my mind hadn’t yet reached that point of being over complicated and analytical and I could just accept the simple as it was. I didn’t need an explanation, I just enjoyed the show for what my limited reason could understand. All these years later, listening to your interpretation has brought some of that back to me, and given me a chance to view everything I knew in a whole new light. My only disagreement with you, concerning the original video, is that watching it would take the mystery away, simplifying everything to a conclusion; in point of fact, it’s given me more mystery in my experience of twin peaks; forcing me to re-examine my own conclusions of the show, which I must say, I was blessed that it was at a time in my life when I could accept the strange with wonder and just enjoy twin peaks for what it was to me; just a good show. Thank you for helping me get some of that mystery back, and allowing me to re-examine my own ideas.
I feel like Dougie at the slots seeing another TP video from Twin Perfect after thinking the original 4.5 hour video was the only one. *_Helloooooo!!~_*
I feel like the "just feel" approach is good for the first run through of any David Lynch film. This should be followed by mulling it over and rewatching before coming to a conclusion.
Lynch truly is the Wizard of Oz here. The answers are actually simple, but it's the bells and whistles concealing them that make it all interesting. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Im a painter and I can completely relate to the pain it causes me to over explain my work. If it could have been an essay, it would be already. The thoughts feelings the audience experiences viewing the work is so much more nuanced and powerful. And you can *still* interpret the core ideas of the images but its never the whole picture and by itself cheapens the work.
Twin perfect is terrified of ambiguity and the unknown and needs to 'solve' everything. His view of people and the world seems shallow and restricted by fear and neurosis.
I’ve watched the videos a few times but I don’t remember if anything was said about the Bookhouse boys. In the fourth episode of the first season, Big Ed, Harry, Hawk, James meet In a secret place where coffee is free and just before this event, Harry says that Twin Peaks has always been a different place... That people always fought against evil, that there is something evil in the woods ... It is strange that this was never mentioned in the series or in the film again.
@@charmicarmicat2981 I think by that point, Truman (like the audience) just wants the answer. He has evidence against Ben Horne (which perhaps feeds his preexisting bias) and by that point, it’s enough for him to charge him with Laura’s murder. Note, however, that Cooper backs off when Truman challenges him about letting Horne go, which sets up Truman to trust Cooper and go along with him in that strange gathering at the Roadhouse, where everything is revealed. I’ve often thought how different the original show would have been if it came out even ten years later, when DNA evidence had become more of the norm. It would have been a lot harder for BOB to “hide.”
"When you develop ideas wordlessly in your head, it's hard to explain them in a way that retains their tone. When you explain them in the most straightforward way, they can come off... not so well, or at least, not the same. " This comment about your work is not mine but I agree 100%
This is what I thought, because many of the applied meta answers presented here, are in a more loose sense relatable to say Universal Truth, which David was above all, searching for through his work, I believe.
MCMicel1979 Yes, and in some form or another, might that not be what we're all doing? Looking back, the best decisions I made weren't exactly rational. The important ones were intuitive and seemed to jibe with my soul - they felt necessary - others were simply messy and ill conceived, hard to own, but luckily of less importance and may perhaps even have provided me with some usable experience and toughness, I don't know... Who knows what would've happened with alternate choices, right?
Hallands Menved Right. The way David cooperates with the writers (Frost) implies this as well. It’s more about faith in the idea and the intuition then it is about trying to force the perceived into fruition, which implies knowing exactly what one is doing I would say.
You know, it's interesting, as a middle schooler watching TP for the first time, Bob was the scariest thing about the show. Now, I think it's Sheryl Lee's scream. It's like fear made manifest. That woman must have vocal chords of iron.
@@vaelethun I still think Bob is scarier. Just looking at the dude gives a shiver down my spine honestly. Him and sheryl made the best combo on horror TV to this day in my opinion. Everytime I hear her scream I always get shook if Bob is going to pop out of nowhere and just kill her. 😭 Sheryl really showed her acting in the end of season 2 in the black lodge.
@@GaMeOvEr12454 Definitely; Frank Silva has a face made for horror. Seeing him again when I was rewatching TP this past month, especially that first time with Sarah Palmer, was always disturbing as hell. But I dunno, something just shakes me to the core about Sheryl's scream. It's like *overwhelming*, almost unnatural. She's a great actress, and it's a shame people shrug her off, especially with how much she gave in Fire Walk with Me.
Watching Twin Peaks: The Return, I noticed its likeness to The Odyssey and the TV-shaped glass box clued me in to some level of meta-commentary going on, and those two observations helped me feel satisfied with the season and its ending while still not understanding it all that well. I didn't pull too hard at either thread and unravel all the pieces, I don't know how far I would have gotten. It was really thrilling watching these and recognizing I was on a good trail, both on the Lynch level and the Frost level of signification. You were incredibly thorough. Thanks for all the work you put into this.
As from The Wizard of Oz: it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. "Focus on the donut, not the donut hole" - Lynch Influence isn't always intention, & intention can be influenced by execution.
I definitely thought some of what you said was a stretch, but I disagree with your analysis of why people thought that. I thought your general analysis is probably right, but I think from that general idea you read things into some of the smaller details that weren't necessarily there
Bobo Boy yeah, but the entire point of that video is that he's claiming it's not interpretation but the truth of the ideas behind the show, something he clarifies in this one
@@KristofskiKabuki He clarified it in the initial video as well, where he basically said he could be wrong, but he is certain he got what was going on. In a much older video Ross implies that he's not really the type to go "IMO" a bunch of times throughout a video.
Marcel Duchamp said the artist is a mediumistic being and that the posterity (audience) decides its meaning or value. Lynch may have intended something but that doesnt mean its correct or the intention is what happens.
I think the only thing I'm rejecting about these videos is the notion that the meta commentary on the state television (which i've always acknowledged, even before the Return) is the main driving force for Lynch's Twin Peaks and that any other intended meaning is secondary or an offshoot of that. Not that there's much value in arbitrarily designating weight classes to each interpretation, but your guess is as good as mine when it comes to distilling the single most important theme Lynch had in his head when deciding work on Twin Peaks. Who knows really. But I don't doubt this interpretation. My problem with the initial 4 hour video was with the presentation. "It's over guys. TWIN PEAKS HAS BEEN SOLVED! It's all meta commentary on television duuude. Everything else is secondary to this. Lynch certified." This follow up video certainly helps dampen the attitude that I perceived as being a bit overly confident for a theory that, while true, could have been secondary itself.
@@borizzle1 A little snark is fine. I dont think Im being the sensitive one when now every time there's a new twin peaks theory video everyone in the comments starts linking this video, like it's the nail in the coffin. And if anyone says they disagreed with it, they get attacked. People have a strange defensive desire with this theory to the point of personal ridicule and it has a lot to do with the way that initial video is titled and presented (which even the author seems to acknowledge in these follow up videos). If anything, the staunch defenders are being sensitive.
@@Drew-vn8rx I can see why it would be annoying to have people spamming the video everywhere. Still I have yet to see a more comprehensive and specific interpretation of Twin Peaks. From what you can actually interpret, it's difficult to find a more prominent theme.
@@borizzle1 Well that may always be the case, as Lynch said, "the mystery is more exciting than the answer". Its not meant to be "solved". I do love the videos by Corn Pone Flicks, Wow Lynch Wow, and Take The Ring. Some recommendations
@@Drew-vn8rx People like the satisfaction of thinking that the work has been solved, and they don't need to be challenged anymore. Any new interpretation risks taking it back to a state of chaotic ambiguity.
Thanks a lot! It was a pleasure to listen to your point of view. I'm from Russia. I'm Twin Peaks fan since 1997. it was shown on TV. And it impressed me by its atmosphere.
Let me just say that not only have you convinced me, you've also helped me enjoy Lynch's movies better in general. Mullholland Drive was always my favorite movie, but I used to just think of it as surrealism. Learning that Mr. Lynch actually intents his movies to have a meaning as well as a commentary on art, and then re-watching Mullholland Drive for a sixth time, suddenly it made perfect sense. And it was an amazing moment to explain exactly just what the hell happened to my parents. So hat's off to you, Twin Perfect. Now I challenge you to explain Inland Empire, because I can't.
I know I’m coming to this three years late, but I think your idea of surrealism is misinformed. Surrealism doesn’t preclude intent, it just offers that intent in a way that is meant to engage more with the subconscious mind than the intellectual, logical mind, which is exactly what Lynch does. Lynch’s art is surrealist, and it has intent. I think a lot of people see something they don’t understand and mistake it for something without meaning, and since surrealist art often obfuscates its meaning, they assume that surrealism and hidden intention are mutually exclusive. But if anything, watching these videos should show that they definitely aren’t. Sometimes you just have to look deeper.
@@dingus_maximus What is a few years in the face of discussing the nature of imagination an art ? I must confess my interpretation of surrealism as being detached from grounded reality is almost certainly coming from reality, as important as it may be, boring me to tears. Not to the point of pure nihilism, mind. But present me with a mesmerizingly unique aesthetic to the tune of "Gotta Light ?" and my subconscious will tend to shut off critical sense and just bask in the utter beauty of this dreamlike world. I am not saying "This makes no sense." I'm saying "Oh boy oh, boy, it makes no sense !" So, of course, I cannot pretend to be in any kind of objective vision here. But at the same time, while my psyche tends to stay in that nebulous cloud of unexplainable space, I can also recognize the commitment to reality through the prism of dreams David Lynch provides. I'm just irredeemably committed to adoring nonsense for what it is. I'm just still grounded just enough to appreciate that Lynch's work is actually very methodical.
@@omega2279 Wasn’t expecting a response but I appreciate it a lot, and I especially like your philosophy and how you expressed it. If I implied that just sitting back and enjoying something surreal without engaging with its deeper meanings was a lesser way of enjoying something, I apologize because I completely agree with you. The thing that drew me to Lynch’s work the most was the presentation, for sure. I think, especially for a first time viewing, it’s honestly comforting to sit back and just let it all wash over you. That’s where the magic comes from, and as much as I like rewatching Twin Peaks, nothing can perfectly replicate that initial viewing where I was strapped in and had no idea what was happening. Let’s continue to enjoy Lynch’s wild ride and figure it out as we go! 👍
The core explanation from the 4+ hour video has been on Reddit for a couple years now. What I appreciate with these videos is the effort you put into this massive deep dive that wonderfully expands on it. It also really shows the brilliance of what Lynch and Frost achieved.
A good analogy for how you explained interpretation would be a kaleidoscope. A central item that's interesting on its own but is made much more interesting when viewed through a lens that abstracts it. You can even view it from different perspectives to see entirely different things
Exactly. His video is simply pointing out how we are all staring through the same kaleidoscope, David Lynch’s idea. Glad to see others see this as well, lot of needless haters in these comments, saying their view through the kaleidoscope is the only way it can be viewed. I say people like that, don’t even realize theres a kaleidoscope at all.
We are like the dreamer who dreams then lives inside the dream. But who is the dreamer? That’s the clue that lead to me think this was a dream a man named Richard had the night his wife Linda left him. Don’t know if I’m right or now but I like to think I’m close either way I love David Lynch’s mind he is an artistic genius. The way he tells a story is truly unique.
Rosseter, first off--thanks for making these videos; they are extremely thought-provoking and the arguments are on-the-whole well-reasoned, well-supported, and convincing--there were dozens of ideas you shared that were "a-ha" moments for me while watching. That said, part of putting academic-style material into the world is that there will be responses from the audience--it's why there are peer-reviewed scientific journals, for example. This process of response, questioning, and engagement is called critique, not criticism--the need to respond to "the critics" and belabor the point that "you're right" is not a great look and doesn't exactly elevate your initial piece. It's clear you've put a lot of time, attachment, passion, and effort into making the material rewarding, but getting defensive when people disagree or challenge points you've made isn't productive. You mention in this video that people found some of your ideas "a stretch," and I agree--conclusions like the woodsman/electrician "planting" electric poles because he has a stick, or the spiraling section about Lynch's son with the mask, are simply not as well-supported as some of your other arguments--and THAT'S OK! Not every assertion is going to have an ironclad explanation, and you may be right, or you may be wrong, but the process of making the assertion, if it's got at least some support, is what has made reading about Twin Peaks theories interesting for going on 30 years. It's OK for people to disagree or challenge an idea and it doesn't necessarily diminish its value if it does have basis in evidence. One nuance I think you miss when stressing your "correct" interpretation and the somewhat paradoxical validity of other interpretations is that great art is not only born from its creator's original idea, but if it's actually good, it'll be DESIGNED in such a way that it represents not only that idea, but also much more--Lynch is clearly a master of this! By beating the dead (white?) horse that there's a single correct interpretation, you risk turning a blind eye to the richness of imagery, themes, and unique expressive elements that the medium of film/TV offer to convey open-ended meaning beyond and IN ADDITION TO the core idea. It's not that your explanation isn't right, it's just that art doesn't end there! It reminds me of the classic Marxist literary interpretation that every work of fiction is ultimately about class struggle--yes, you can validly interpret almost any work of fiction through that lens, but does that mean that's ALL THERE IS to it, or there aren't innumerable other layers of valid meaning? Of course not, and by focusing solely on one pet interpretation, you stand to shut out other things that might simultaneously be there. I'm not of the camp that says it can't be explained (like I said, I buy into most of your interpretation), but I do believe that the series is also meant to intellectually baffle but simultaneously evoke a strong emotional response, and that the path to interpreting its truth lies in the convergence of those emotional and intellectual clues. This idea and your ideas aren't mutually exclusive. So, I welcome your interpretation as one facet of understanding this art, alongside many more! I'm looking forward to watching the "EVEN MORE Evidence" video and urge you to focus on that kind of content--the actual ideas and interpretations, which are what's actually interesting, rather than focusing on responding to people who disagree or challenge points you've made. Imagine if David Lynch spent his time not creating more art, but going online and correcting every person who shared an interpretation of his works. Yikes! Respect to you for your gargantuan contributions!
i watched all three seasons and the movie and my interpretation is that twin peaks is all about dualities and a contemporary and creative expression of some of the oldest (good vs evil/light vs dark) stories in our world. coffee (bitter) vs donuts/pie (sweet), Laura Palmer (blonde) vs Maddy Ferguson (brunette), Black Lodge vs White Lodge, etc. even the name, TWIN peaks, alludes to the overall theme.
“Cable television is the new art-house.” -David Lynch There’s a correct interpretation; yours just isn’t it. You’ve got a few things right, and so many things wrong. Pan out. Yes, it’s meta and self aware as a show, but your thesis only makes sense if the “real world” is an accurate representation of base reality, and is therefore totally ontologically different from the realities in the show. You might believe that personally, but the show itself takes a different metaphysical position.
"The story really happened because hearing the story happened to you. Just because it was made up doesn't mean the feelings you had while listening to it weren't real."
This is essentially the concept of hyperreality. It exists, therefore it's real. Disneyland and it's cartoon characters are just as real as the city that contains it, Anaheim.
Tom McDaniel what do you mean exactly? Lynch made Eraserhead around when his wife become pregnant and had his first son. I always saw it as his feelings on impending fatherhood.
Tom McDaniel I mean I don’t have to watch a 4.5 hour video to have my own interpretation of what Lynch’s work means to me. But I would love to watch a 4.5 hour video on Eraserhead just because it’s one of my favorite films ever. Also, no amount of dissertation will dissect what Lynch actually intends with his work.
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 it would be more like beating the horse to death. This video is beating a dead horse. But also, I think Twin Perfect knows that.
Thank you for sharing this thesis as it gives me motivation to rewatch with a new perspective. I have always appreciated the idea of Twin Peaks, and also struggled to get into it because I felt I couldn’t reach any closer to solving the mystery. Seeing this in 2024, the message is more important than ever. Your way of exploring these themes was well organized and engaging. I thoroughly enjoyed watching each of these videos and look forward to seeing more of your channel. I hope you’ll eventually upload a new video!
if he can actually prove it, then what's wrong with that statement? and "opinions can't be wrong because they're subjective" is a fallacy, because they can be objectively wrong.
Glad you had the Mark Frost part in the end. Was my biggest issue with the original video because regardless of our perception of involvement Twin Peaks IS Lynch & Frost together
People are getting it wrong. Art should always have many interpretations. Just because this is the central idea behind TP, doesn't mean that other themes like abuse, dreams, alternate realities and such are less important. And also, it doesn't mean that the in-world story is unimportant. A piece of art such as TP has a lot of layers and can work in many different ways.
"Everybody's a detective and whatever they come up with is valid in my mind" Funny enough, that got me thinking of what David Lynch did to television shows in the 90's being very similar to what Scott Cawthon did to video games in the 2000's. In two different mediums, they both ignited the water cooler effect. Wonder if Scott Cawthon may have been a Twin Peaks fan...
I think the "meta" levels actually validate the characters of the story even more. It actually gives them more "life", thinking that, probably, Mr Lynch considered them to be "real" and actually CARED about their lots INSIDE the TV realm, so much as he was trying to "save" them from what he thought was corrupting the medium and flooding it with meaningless violence and darkness. To me, that´s super fascinating, something a modern day shaman might do. Magically altering reality through storytelling, and turning storytelling devices and participants into actual human representatives. That´s something that has been done from the beginning of humankind, think of all the gods, demi-gods, demons and spirits representing different aspects of our lives and experiences. He´s letting the TV show talk about it´s own experience and existence, in a way.
You lost me at the demon/spirit stuff being related to aspects of our lives. Are you retarded enough to just believe whatever a dishonest materialistic atheist anthropologist is going to tell you in a book/video? Spirits and demons are actual beings that exist, but your blind/dumb/deaf ass won't be experiencing that aspect of the world because you're simply not up to par for it. Simple as that, and God is real. One God.
Thanks for talking about the TM aspects of this show and how it relates to the integration of the shadow self. First analysis on TH-cam that makes that connection!
Yet, there is a chap called Mark Frost who is as important to Twin Peaks as Lynch himself. Yet, obsession can make you ignore basic facts.Mark Frost was involved with Fire Walk With Me, and the famous RING is Frost's mythology.
Frost did not write FWWM as he did not want to make a prequel. Lynch wrote the film with Robert Engels, so the ring came from those two working together. Frost definitely is important to Twin Peaks though and The Return.
I woudn't consider myself a critic, once I simply disagree with the interpretation and do not engage in critizing you for a different idea. In my humble opinion, David would never create a show along with Mark Frost, where you would have to get clues from a technical search on Google about Alternating Current or from videos of interviews with Lynch, for example. I think it's bigger than that. It's very easy to condense figurative ideas into some metalinguistic concept, and that's, by the way, not David's style, let alone Mark Frost. For instance, people do the same thing with Eraserhead: they say Henry was the reflection of Lynch and that the movie is about the nightmare of parenthood in his mind, while he says that it's his most spiritual film and that Henry's character is a much wider reflection of our own society! And, furthermore, I don't think it's right to totally ignore Mark Frost great influence on the show, basically supporting the whole interpretation on only Lynch's ideas.
You don't need to do a Google search to find these themes in the show. You don't even need to know about David Lynch to reach this same conclusion. When I watched Twin Peaks I knew nothing about David Lynch, I didn't even realize he played Gordon, yet I came to a very similar conclusion as Twin Perfect. Doing research outside the show helped me confirm the beliefs I already had about the show and it helped me notice details that I missed the first time around, but this research was not at all necessary for me to understand the show.
I kept saying that for 25 years, people comparing tp to lost, I was like no tp has a solid structure at its very core, it means something cohesive while lost is just a buffer of peace meal ideas. Tp respected it’s audience and it’s intelligence. Well except season 2.
I agree about Twin Peaks being a commentary on television. It makes sense as both Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire get into Lynch's views regarding Hollywood and the movie industry...
Also, Lynch saying every interpretation is valid does not conflict with him saying that every thing he creates serves an idea. The idea, the abstraction, and its translation by him into the screen, is then interpreted by the audience. He didn’t say there is a single correct plot line. It’s a work of art
To anyone who thinks your interpretation is "EASY" ......well those people are nuts........................you really have sit with the show and look deep inside to find even the most surface levels of meaning. You explaining the waves was much like Lynch explaining that the white horse is the white of the eyes.........but I did not understand what it meant until you explained it means looking away.
To any one thinking what twin perfect did here was easy they should know that twin perfect took a nearly 3 year break to most likely make the 4hr vid. I remember thinking man what ever happen to those guys? and boom! a few days later they made the 4hr long twin peaks vid (which coincidentally I had just finished twin peaks a few months before. lucky me!) How any one thinks the amount of research and just sheer work he did here was easy is beyond me, maybe those people need to write dissertations for fun.
I watched all of these videos and I now feel that my way of watching and interpreting Twin Peaks is by understanding it's actually 2 stories. There's Lynch's story that's more symbolic and there's Frosts story which feels more literal. I love both equally in perfect balance. In the Return I feel Lynch's ending is the bad but through Frost's interpretation it could be seen as the good ending where Laura defeats Judy and ends the show. I'm going to embrace this way of watching the show cause it's now a show that tells 2 interesting stories, in perfect balance.
This comment would definitely help reconcile the big "debate" going on between TP and the fandom because TP is explaining Lynch's deeper intentions for the show and the fandom tend to follow the Frost aspects of the show (linear storytelling). Makes sense why Frost WROTE TWO books before and after the return finished to give the fandom the closures they wanted for the linear aspects of the show. Also, TP's theory is in line with how most artists deal with a fandom like TP's fandom who always want "satisfactory/logical conclusions/closure" without thinking about the deeper layers of the show. TP really exposed the Twin Peaks fandom's immaturity & lack of consideration for Lynch's artistry, which is why I root for TP.
Same issue I have with postmodernism or the “all interpretations are valid” philosophy bit of it - yes there are nearly infinite ways to describe and interpret and deconstruct things. No, they are not all valid. Some are more valid than others, and some of the more valid ones are more practical and “real”. Twin Peaks is explicitly not about blue cows. It is about Laura Palmer, but that isn’t an entire interpretation. It is about the balance of good and evil - now we’re getting somewhere. It’s about the balance of good and evil in TV and media - still not an *entire* interpretation, but beats the hell out of some blue cow theory.
That’s stupid. David intentionally makes his art so that it can be interpreted differently by different people. I see the point you’re making, and i agree to an extent, but you lack an understanding of the show. I think violence on tv is a PART of the story, but it discredits the entirety of the show when you pinpoint the whole meaning to such a small aspect of the show. The show also focuses heavily on nostalgia and how things have changed, and i also find time and aging to be a big part of the show displayed through many of the older characters played by older actors like harry dean stanton.
@@auglarauglar No, you’re right, it’s just that the “all interpretations are valid” philosophy extends to interpretations that are explicitly not valid. Many, many interpretations are valid. I have a cup of coffee, you could say it’s juice, you could say it’s soup… but to say it’s orange juice would be missing the mark.
Agree with the above. The problem I have with Twin Perfects interpretation is the way it is presented. The presentation suggests that the entirety of the Twin Peaks narrative can be reduced to a simple formulaic idea. I know thats the way Lynch talks about his work, but its just not how film or literary theory works. Of course there are interpretations that come closer to a intended meaning of a text or movie, but that doesnt mean that you arrive at a place where every possible question of the piece is resolved. Even with the most simple detective story, one can still ask questions about some aspect of the story, even when the murderer has long been found. So long story short: Where postmodernist theories might allow for too much room for interpretation, Twin Perfect, in my opinion, allows for too little.
@@DoctorLazertron ig it’s just taste. I like being able to look at the show as something that doesn’t have a definitive meaning, or rather doesn’t need to have a definitive meaning. That’s shere a lot of the enjoyment comes from for me.
I really appreciate the hard work that goes into these analyses and I love how it provides a dialogue for other viewers - it creates a sense of community, and that's wonderful. However, there is a good deal of presuppositions that are occurring. The first of which lies on a phrase called the "intentional fallacy," which I imagine Lynch is aware of. We suppose that the words that are coming from Lynch are indeed the truth when in art this is just not the case. There is his viewpoint, but he is not the one that determines what his art is or even what it does. That will always be contextual because art is a living document - an object "sculpted in time," as Tarkovsky put it. Also, this does not include what his word "does, " as opposed to what "is." And because it lacks this analysis, it's naturally incomplete. Jonathan Rosenbaum and other contemporary film critics are away of this and create their essays based largely on these principles, which is why their writing is very interesting because it takes into account both authorial, personal, formal, and cultural points of view - this creates a more honest interpretation of an art object, rather than one that is solely concerned with the artist alone. Also, even though "auteur theory" implies that a film director (including producer, writer, and more!) is the sole creator of the work, that's just not at all true in film and television, where there is an entire cast and crew that's to credit the work. This may be more true in say, photography or another fine art, but it's not easy to justify in multimedia art.
This is a point worth making, but also ultimately a semantic one-and not really inconsistent with the argument of the video. We could retitle it "An Overarching Allegory Consciously & Intentionally Embedded in Twin Peaks by David Lynch Explained" without injury to the thesis (if not, perhaps, the viewer count). It doesn't foreclose (and I thought Rosseter said as much here) other meanings embedded, consciously or unconsciously, either by Lynch or other co-creators, nor alternative readings the text might support & which might be interesting or illuminating whether or not they were in any sense intended by any of the creators.
Pseudo-intellectual drivel, if I make a piece of art and intend for it to mean one thing then it doesn't matter in what context or culture the art exists in, it means what I intended for it to mean. I hate this obsession with relativism and undermining objective truth. That being said, I really think this guy is wrong about a huge amount.
Man deconstructionism is poison. Art is not a "living document" who's meaning changes with the times as we put our own feelings and biases into it decades or centuries after it was created. The meaning of the original art remains unchanged, as it itself is unchanged. What has changed is us and so instead of seeing what was originally meant, we take it, using our own context as a filter and see what we want to see, not what was meant for us to see.
@@Gotterdammerung05 Thanks for your reply. This still does not nullify an argument regarding the intentional fallacy, nor does it nullify an argument over the types of meaning that can be generated toward an art object. If you think that there is only one meaning an art object can have, that is false. Artists and art critics/historians over millennia have spoken to this, including Lynch himself. In fact, Lynch has stated since the beginning of his career that he is categorically opposed to giving an audience the "meaning" of any of his works. And, yes, art does change over time, usually when certain sociopolitical events occur, but not exclusively when they occur. For example, WW2 shed light on the work of Leni Riefenstahl and contextualized her films. That's not to say that they aren't still brilliant, but it puts them in a different context, likely diverting from the context she originally intended. Also, it's good to point out that meaning doesn't occur at one level. For instance, David Bordwell has posited at least four levels of meaning, including Referential, Explicit, Implicit, and Symptomatic. At what level are you critiquing a work? This context makes a difference. And, we haven't even touched on the fact that art objects go beyond cognition and "meaning-making." Art elicits feelings, memories, biases, and so on, that all color individual meaning making. At the individual level, these are important and are most of the criticism I see on the internet by laypersons, but it's often taken literally with complete disregard for other levels of critique. Good film critics such as Jonathan Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Pauline Kael, NerdWriter, etc. are good at balancing these elements; most "content critics" are not.
the one possible contradiction in what you say is, if Lynch is intending to correct the imbalance in the zeitgeist by injecting depth where there's shallowness and confronting chaos and fear in the zeitgeist with a view to restoring love and peace or something (I forget what you said exactly) isn't the overwhelming effect and substance of his work, Twin Peaks and especially The Return just that, fear and chaos? I feel Lynch produces negativity himself far more than anything else. It reminds me very much of the early Surrealists' stated intent of trying to create "hallucinatory nightmare states" à la Dali & Yves Tanguy.I find the fun and illuminating things in his work ultimately are just like bait and the cumulative, longer term effects are to gradually drag you into a black pit of a certain type of consciousness. I don't sense good intentions or spirit in his work. But maybe that's his whole idea, to take you into the black pit of the unconscious to see if you can work your way out of it into consciousness in terms of the absolute sense of the unified field of infinite consciousness you can experience through TM. It seems like a Lynch thing to do to confront a perception of fear and chaos in the zeitgeist by producing shows that ultimately are most notably full of those same things themselves. Perhaps the answer then is that while flawed in its execution in that sense, he's over-intellectualising the expansion of this idea in the way that intellectuals and aesthetes can do and out of touch with the reality of what his shows are full of and the inherent contradiction between supposed intent and execution. The Return being a brutal and exhausting experience I could only watch once, as brilliant as it is, the thing that struck me is that to me, Frost and Lynch are too obsessed with and hung up on power and that's the flaw in their work. To my mind all that darkness and brutality ultimately serves thematic, psychological and aesthetic fixation with power which is ultimately unfulfilling and destructive which they themselves are unaware of. Like they think it's the ultimate liberator or ultimately fulfilling, are imo are incorrect about that and unaware of it.
After binging this entire analysis series, I find it increasingly difficult not to hear Lynch-impersonation inflections in your regular speaking voice. :))
After watching your original video, and then watching other youtubers attempting to explain season 3, I feel deep within me that your explanation is true. Others people are talking on a superficial level: is Audrey in an asylum? Will there be a bad Cooper spin off? Until I saw your video I was hoping that another season would be announced to explain what had happened in season 3. But your explanation is so logical, fitting with everything we've seen on screen, and demonstrating an incredibly deep message about the corruption of television, I feel that you have to be correct. I do not believe I would have ever found these answers without you, because I was not looking in the right way. I look forward to watching the entirety of Twin Peaks again with this new insight. I also look forward to heeding Lynch's message and not watching television anymore. When I saw your video I was on season 4 of 'Sons of anarchy', after watching your explanation it now feels cheap, angry and dirty. Thank you for taking the time to present your findings so well and for the serious amount of work you must have put in. I always knew Twin Peaks was not just another TV show, right from first watching it aged 16 in 1993. I didn't realise just how truly profound it was. Thank you.
As long as you're answering criticisms... I find my two biggest problems with yours not answered. The first one is that you consider one singular meaning of an audiovisual media being somehow more interesting to director than the others. It's a very Brechtian approach, but also rather diminishing, one I'm not sure Brecht himself would've agreed with. Foremost that makes me wonder whether you understand how filmmaking works as an art and, for that matter, how art works, collectively and with single author. Yes, artist gives opinion through art and an art object conveys some message(s), but many things which we conventionally consider masterpieces deal with multiple themes. Artists explores subject(s), audience find beauty in it. Sometimes also sense, but beauty, overall, is enough. Why is that so offensive of an idea for something to have multiple layers, ALL of which are right? I mean, I won't pretend I am an expert, because neither 18 years spent on filmmaking nor PhD with my thesis being tied directly to finding meaning in audiovisual media (if from a standpoint of political science) make me one. In my core I am an insecure amateur. I'm not even bringing those for bragging rights, mind you. Just to say that I still feel like a moron even when everything tells me otherwise. The more I learn, the more experience I get, the more doubts I have as a result. And the more I marvel why some people just stop there after a certain point and approach the world from a POV of 'grown-up', simply starting to fail in many aspects and not acknowledging it. As much as my heart bleeds for my own misfortunes on every front, my heart also bleeds for artists, who spend their lifetimes on filmography, discographies, painting catalogs or bibliographies only for someone to tarnish their complex nature laid out in multiple works into something very trivial. And that leads us to another problem of an almost equal magnitude in your critical approach to Lynch: it, consciously or not, borders mocking and bullying. And that's kind of upsetting to see and really weakens the overall structure of your essays. From personal experience things like that also very much come hand-in-hand with confirmation bias. I don't know whether it's how you're seeing it, but for me you come across as someone who will absolutely consider oneself superior to artist for 'figuring it all out', not taking into consideration that there is simply no rivalry between the critic and the artist. Even bad artist with one decent work wins in the long run, because critic's work is a supplement and seldom takes as much time and effort. And your effort, while adequate, just could be summed up with your David Lynch impression. With intonations of your voice. I believe the word is 'smug'. Also 'sensationalist'. That is also how you come across from thumbnails alone. There is an inherent and very jarring mismatch between presentation and theoretical research of yours which I just can't be onboard with. Same goes for everything, starting with the about page of your channel. "Remember it's okay to be wrong!". Do you remember that yourself, though? Because, you see, in my humble opinion doubt is essential. It is especially essential in art. Most of the negativity we associate with art comes from absence of doubt on artist's part: definite (and yet somehow all the more shallow for it) statements, overly bold overdeveloped style. Heck, lack of evolution is also there, as using the same old tricks and not experimenting is the way to avoid doubt. When something is a result of gradual (and oftentimes very painful) trial-an-error development and earned insights it's more in the vein of clarity, however abstract the term is. And when it's something that constantly motivates and dictates your work, that's where bias begins. Just one simple example of that bias: your split screen which is there to illustrate Lynch's and Frost's approaches has 'Invitation to Love' and Frost's books. Regardless of whether you're aware that 'Invitation to Love' in its entirety is written and directed by Mark Frost it just comes off as a pull immediately. Manipulative statement, at best.
I'm so confused. Your very first statement is to compare the interpretation to someone and then say that person would disagree with it, which...you're the one who brought up Brecht
Thank the Lord someone has pointed this out, I find this guy very irritating and irrationally self-assured, absolutely devoid of doubt. Doubt, in my opinion, is a reflection of intellectual maturity and wisdom.
Just realised something: a digital waveform signal is usually shown as a series of rectangles but the effect on its receiver is to create a zig-zag form that looks like the diagonal lines of the Red Room. I can't remember if this was covered by the Twin Perfect videos so thought I'd mention it here. Also, depending on the lag/latency of the receiver (i.e. if its voltage levels drop immediately/vertically or gradually/diagonally) sometimes the waveform has a sawtooth shape like the circular saw in the original opening!
I think this is a worthwhile observation, and it just made me realize that the diagonal lines also resemble a cartoon representation of an active TV set without a clear signal. The sawtooth shape doesn't resonate with that image to me as well, but I might feel differently when I go back and watch it again.
as both an artist and an experiencer of.... rope, I just want to say that Lynch checking himself into a trauma centre is really quite an understandable action. there are a lot of things I say in my art, but speaking the words and giving it life can be incredibly traumatic, you open yourself in a way that people don’t often do. if anything I’m really glad he recognized and sought tools to deal with that trauma.
The person making this video is deliberately misrepresenting what Lynch meant. If you read Lynch on Lynch, the first page of which he's quoting, it is clear that Lynch was making a joke exaggerating his feelings about the interview when he said he was going to check himself into the centre. It is certainly a joke in poor taste, but Lynch was joking and the reader is not supposed to believe that he actually did it. I don't understand why the videomaker would so cynically misrepresent Lynch like this, except to present his own point as having more moral weight than it may actually have.
The unified field is neutral. Through mystery questions arise. The human detective capacitors close the circuit and allow the field to flow as the question creates tension in the field. The golden ring is separation from the field as it simulates the tension but closes the circuit apart from it forming a closed circle, closure. It is way beyond meta TV...
I must applaud your efforts here. This is easily the most detailed, deep dive with examples and great theories. Really like the overall explanation of the audience, the director, and its relationship to television and film in a meta kinda way. Really really cool. I could have watched the series another 20 times, and never could have come up with this. Truly unique
In my humble opinion your interpretation is pretty much spot on when it comes to 3rd season... when it comes to the first and second one, and FWWM it's also very accurate, but (yeah, there always have to be some "but")... Let's be honest here, when Lynch and Frost were writing script for first season they didn't knew how 3rd will look like, or even if it will be filmed for that matter. I would be careful trying to impose 1:1 eg. what woodsman in 1956 said in 3rd season on pale horse depicted in 1st season. Yes, it works, makes sense, but aren't we played here a little bit? Do we really believe that's exactly what they had in mind back in the days? I suppose in some instances we are being made to backwardly impose a lot of definitions, meanings and connections on things which weren't so perfectly thought-out as it might seem, kind of anachronically narrowing it down. It's not so much as criticism towards you, as I would like to point out that such approach in general is a bit idealistic. Simple thing like, given amount of people involved and time passed, the twin peaks mythos inevitably accumulated some minor inaccuracies, and IMO it isn't 100% consistent, that doesn't mean we can't attempt making awesome theories of course. Similar thing with interviews, I wouldn't assume every time Lynch gives an interview about eg. meditations and stuff, he's leaving clues about his views and working methods which can be picked sentence by sentence and applied 1:1 to explain Twin Peaks, I know sometimes it might seem helpful, but that's just unrealistic, and should be used very, very sparingly. This is nitpicking, but maybe this interpretation could also use more interplay between other films, mainly Blue Velvet, Lost Highway and Mullholland Drive, as I think those films give a lot of insight into Lynch work and themes, I would say certainly more than eg. interviews with him. Given they are relatively short/more condensed, they provide excellent reference point. There are also some minor stretches like attempting to interpret Judy from Chinese, or connecting Monkey with curiosity. It's sketchy, because figure of Monkey packs overwhelming amount of connotations, so many in fact, it seems pointless, I'm pretty sure you could come up with with other meaning which would work in this theory anyway. Again, that's not to criticize the theory, which I appreciate and loved to hear, every second of that 4-hour video, I'm just pointing out limitations of such methodology. Huge thanks for your work, you got me thinking on Twin Peaks again, want to discuss all of this with my friends like in the old good days. Thank You!!!
At the end of the very 1st episode the actor Carel Struyken is not listed as the Fireman in the credits. There are just ???????. This means ( to me ) that Dale Cooper has returned after Twin Peaks dies and therefore he is no longer the Fireman because there is no more fire. No more electricity. No more ideas being generated. It is in our house now!!!! Thanks again for your awesome explainers !
I'm not trying to diminish the incredible amount of work you've put into these videos but I must say I have two main issues overall. 1. The tone. I read a wonderful piece in Sight and Sound one time when it was discussing the end of The Sopranos and the general gist of it was "ambiguity" is not a riddle. If something is ambiguous it's not saying there is an answer, just that the subject is open to many different theories and interpretations. If your video was like "my take" or "here's a theory" but your general lecturing tone is a bit much. You've done the homework but it's like someone could sit down and cross reference every single story or anecdote from Bob Dylan's life and his music but you can't explain what "Visions Of Johanna" means to me or anyone else. There's also an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Seven of Nine becomes obsessed with information and the moral of the story is with so much data, one could construct so many different scenarios which she does in the episode. 2. You pick what Lynch quotes to dismiss and which to hold as gospel so rigidly to support your points. I've been following Lynch for a long time and his interviews often contradict themselves. If something doesn't fit your theory, you seem to say that paricular quote isn't relevant and then you cling to something he said one time as an anchor for a whole segment of your theory. I respect the work you did and your love of the show is clear (I also like your Lynch impression for the record!) but there is offering analysis and then there's intellectual posturing and I think you're in the space between these different coloured lodges.
Your first point reads like: The story is intentionally ambiguous, therefore its interpretation belongs solely to the viewer. And objective understanding is impossible, so don't try. Second point criticizes cherry-picked Lynch quotes in a Lynch analysis, immediately after using cherry-picked comparisons in the first point that have no relevance to a Lynch analysis. I get no intellectual posturing vibes from this guy, just passion for the series and passion for the detective work. We all reside in the space between, but even so your analogy isn't the best since Offering Analysis and Intellectual Posturing aren't polar opposites. Well Thought-out vs Not Well Thought-out perhaps, examples of both are close by.
@@dl5440 What would be wrong with the first point? like music, like poetry, the reader/ audience can bring their own interpretation to something. The maker of this video has a take on it. I don't challenge that he does. I have a problem with the tone and his dogmatic reading being presented as THE answer and the implication that if you don't accept it you're being obtuse. The ending of the Sopranos is seen as an ambigious ending. Ambiguity is rare on TV so I feel it's a valid comparison and my Voyager example is when you have so many contradictory things it can be a fools errand to try and construct a straight ahead explanation. I feel both things are vital to the thesis he presented. As for my second point, Lynch is constantly fessing up to how instinctual his work is and I think it's a bit disengenous to take him saying something like "Well Tv was a bit moribund" and then building a huge theory about that. Lynch constantly shifts the goal posts. Again I feel this is bias. Any sound bite that suits his theory he'll present but I have Lynch on Lynch too and there's plenty in that about how the show is not built to be understood but felt. Again it's not even his analysis that's the problem. I respect the work he put into this but it's a little bit hectoring and you can respect his take on it and still concede that these are about 6 hours of someone presenting a theory as fact.
@@ThinkingCog You have a problem with the tone of his videos. Sometimes people rub us the wrong way. That's normal. But beyond your reaction lie idea nuggets that remain unchallenged thus far.
@@dl5440 Outside of making my own videos presenting my thesis, I'm not sure what challange I can offer beyond this simple one. I don't think Lynch cared that much about the state of television in the 90s to construct what this person is insisting. Lynch wanted to be innovative with the form but this is far too schematic and organised an attack from an artist who is so famously seat of his pants. BOB was the result of a continuty error that was seized upon, how Lynch details creating the Cowboy scene in Mullholland Drive is an anecdote about touching the roof of his car and burning his hand and he suddenly had the image of the Cowboy, my point being, I think a lot of the material here is about feeling and intuition rather than a straight intent to critique. Also there are times where he stretches the material and handwaves it away. The Fire Walk with Me chant for example, Lets just change the spelling there to suit a concept. Don't worry about it. And yeah people rub us the wrong way but I think presentation here is something that can be knocked for how obnoxious parts of it are. His editing, the actual production of the video, top notch for sure. I will admit, I enjoyed watching these videos, Hell I've followed them all but this is a thoroughly researched fan theory. It's not the definite reading, no matter what the video titles say.
@@ThinkingCog Let's look at Lynch's instincts and Feeling vs Understanding. His process for collecting ideas is well-documented as is their source. It's highly unlikely that he tries to understand the ideas completely. Instead he feels how they can be included. There is space here for the audience to interpret the ideas, but not the kind of space where all interpretation is valid. As the architect of the story, he can feel and thus know how and why an idea is there without needing to dissect it. But suggest to him an interpretation that doesn't jive and he's the first to dismiss it. Numerous interviewees have experienced this. Maybe the creators of Sopranos or Star Trek would indulge you, but not Lynch, and this is a discussion of Lynch.
As a case study in “what happens when people are just given the answer?”, please see Donnie Darko. The actual, confirmed by the writer, explanation of everything going on in that movie is really, really disappointing.
Haven't seen this interview, but i probably watched theories about it being about predetermined destiny and a loop that could only be finished by donnie making the choice to sacrifice himself.
Richter WLK nope, it was aliens. Time manipulating aliens. Running Donnie through a repeating simulation. “Worlds ending” refer to simulation experiments ending. This is all in the writer/director commentary track. And it’s sad.
@@bmardiney that sucks. I think the worst thing about this is that there's nothing in the movie that hints at that, so all the clues that would lead to an explanation basically are red herrings.
@@Cupit29 It's been a while since I've watched/listened to it. I think it was like a test of human nature or something. Like, can all these awful people be saved by one good person. Donnie sacrifices himself for everyone at the end by allowing the plane engine to kill him, thus forcing everyone around him to atone for their sins, kind of. Quite Jesus-y.
I was a person who watched Fire Walk With Me before seeing the actual show, which I watched on Bravo. So I was lucky enough to have the Log Lady's gems of knowledge along with each episode. Which helped put things in perspective, while knowing his feelings toward having his work neutered. So watching season 3, while a complete brain f*ck, made sense in the way it was completely different from the 1st two seasons. I love your breakdowns because not only does it validate my feelings but expands on many other ideas, and I like that. Thank you.
I hate to say this although I’m sure plenty of others have already said it but by virtue of what art is, it’s always a mere fact that art can be interpreted from the perspective that art is made up by a person who makes art, it’s the equivalent of saying that a writer writes, a filmmaker makes films. In other words, it’s a mere starting point. A correct starting point, but by no means the last possible destination, let alone even an interesting destination. The metafictional layer is obviously there, but to assert its primacy is like reading a poem at the metatextual level only, and then to close the book on it, like saying that it means thought is always going to be trapped in language, or that humans are always going to have to confront their own mortality, etc. It’s not incorrect to say but saying it’s the correct interpretation is also to be missing the point completely. Because we can say it about anything that was constructed by humans, or through conscious intention. The fact that an artificer can also tailor this metalevel of meaning by being conscious of it, doesn’t mean that this consciousness is the sum total of the entire message, the other levels of meaning are still operating in the art, and are just as important. So much more important would be to consider the implications of the metatextual starting point in relation to David Lynch as a person living in this world that we all live in, and what is the dream of this world, and who are the dreamers, etc. ? The point isn’t to know his/the original idea, which is impossible, or impossible to prove, but to consider its function as a symbol in relation to its correlate in reality, that is, our own consciousness, and our connection to the mystery of this world through something like dreams, or the experience of trying to figure something out like Twin Peaks, unsolved murders in history, aliens, occultism, etc.
Well said, I love watching the explained videos because this is what lynch wants, for us to become detectives with feeling and intuition, but my mind was stuck with exactly the elements you describe about authorial intent.
For sure. I hope I can also be clear that I think the interpretation of Twin Perfect is very solid analysis. The major problem I have in the assertion is in it's confidence that it has the last interpretation, or that it's proven what Lynch's original intention was. It's good to have a strong argument, but any interpretation, even the most plausible and well put together and even "correct," still can't claim to have proven what the original intent of an author was. No one ever can. The best it can ever attain to is to be a very solid, more solid than most even, interpretation of a piece of art.
The meta part of twin peaks isn't just something as cheap or shallow as a commentary on "consumable TV violence", the meta is in sync with both frost and lynch in that Cooper is the magician/detective going between two worlds to confront his shadow and redeem the soul of Twin Peaks, and by extension the audience does as well because all of Lynches works require you to become a detective of the dream, enter the shadow unconscious world and find balance. The return is ultimately a work of love on those characters, who are real to both Lynch and Frost. You are right about the interpretation of symbols being clues to a grander Meta dream within a dream narrative, but it's not referencing directly the audience in the way you think, because that would make Twin Peaks the return a cynical joke. Cooper, Nadine etc. they are not stand ins for anything, they are real characters like Lynch says, what the audience does is relate to these characters, and there is a big difference here between identifying yourself with them and empathy/feeling. Finally why I feel you miss a more nuanced view of the meta narratives intent, is because you ignore the death of the author. Whatever lynch intended to say with the meta commentary, it is by definition outside of his control, because it wrests on the audience on what kind of emotional closure or meaning they will get from that work of art (outside of the main narrative structure that is), so a more nuanced view imo wouldn't sum it all up in a tidy sense that the final effect of the show was Lynch just preaching with a megaphone to the audience. Because ultimately it begs the question, why return if there isn't something meaningful in traveling with these characters "between two worlds". It begs the question of artistic integrity and honesty. Other than I'm right there with you that there is a very clearly defined meta commentary and I admire that you took so much time to explain so much. You definitely have the right detectives clues.
I might be commenting on the wring video as I just saw both but I love how you explained how ideas grow. And these videos really helps me analyze a lot of other fiction I enjoy too, and explain why I enjoy them.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought the show was implying that Leland didn't actually kill Laura and that perhaps Leland had a doppelganger of his own. In the Black Lodge at the end of Season 2, Leland appears and says something to the effect of "I didn't kill her". Then, in Season 3, we see him again in the lodge, asking Cooper to "find Laura".
Leland possessed by BOB when he killed Laura, so I guess you could say his statement is true. But Leland died so I assume only his shadow remains in the Black Lodge.
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 It's really difficult to figure out whether or not Leland himself is meant to be viewed as guilty. The show made me think he was innocent and just possessed, but the way FWWM plays out made me think that Bob is just a metaphor for evil and that Leland was always the one behind abusing and ultimately killing Laura. What I do like about this in retrospect is that Leland's words just before his death can be read into as exhibiting the cycle of abuse (being abused himself as a child, by Bob, and then taking that past trauma out on Laura). That way, Leland being "possessed" by Bob takes on a whole new meaning.
I don't get one thing.. If David doesn't like what was done in season two, made his point during season two finale, made another point in movie and another in return, why he still wants to make another season? Just to make another point how Twin Peaks was lost after season one and how we can't get over with it? Who can't get over with it more, audience or the author?
No, he is being exactly what Lynch wanted: a detective. He can't give us closure, because he can't affirm his explanation as fact, it is an explanation attempt. Even if he is right on the money, he still has to sell it to us and we can still not buy it. Perhaps only Lynch has perfect credibility to give us that kind of closure and he's not going to. :)
It exists in the same 'universe' as Twin Peaks, just as Lost Highway, Mulhulland Drive, and many of his films. That 'universe' isn't some structured thing ala the MCU, it's the universe of Lynch's dreams and nightmares surrounding American existence. Women are at once angelic and demonic, men are at once paragons and beasts, the pie is perfect and coffee hot and good while the drugs are hard and the sex is rough, demeaning, and intense. Ever outside influences seem to invade; spirits good, evil and strange influence and direct the events of this dichotomous American Dream which haunts Lynch, and appears in so much of his work. I think there's a tendency to hyperanalyse Lynch and his work in an effort to 'make sense' of it in a way that's ultimately futile and more self-exploratory than anything else. Dreams don't make sense, and more importantly don't have too, because it's all about how it makes you feel in the end.
The network wanted Frost and Lynch make a series that was like Blue Velvet... Thats why they went in that direction. Network notes when Lynch was being tapped for a series, they literally placed their wants. They wanted it to be a murder mystery in a Rockwell like setting. Frost and Lynch than realized they wanted Laura Palmer to be dead at the beginning of the show, because of those network notes. Lynch was asked to recreate Blue velvet so he started from there
@@txdust80 Then the overview of Twin Peaks would be that it has the same moral metaphor. Lynch added interesting elements to it (owls/supernstutal occurrences/etc). But the premise is still the same.
If it's about good vs evil, it can't be put into words, and explaining it won't help at all. We still have to live it (there is no closure). This series made people Feel (I could not bear most of it, but I remember the original series well).
I just finished watching your four-and-a-half-hour explanation, the sequel and now this, and I think that your interpretation has come the closest to what Lynch's intention really was out of any I've seen before. I've fully accepted it. But I've also found out this: that an (accurate) explanation of a work of art has an analogous effect to closure in a story. Accepting your explanation has actually killed a little of bit of the magic and the mystery of TP for me. I was planning on rewatching season 3 this weekend, but now I find myself wanting to "move forward". This is not a critique of you, you did a great job, I know this was not your intention, but it is what it is. Lesson learned: don't watch YT videos about movies explained! Cheers.
Killing the magic of the show for the sake of waking you up from the false realities that TV puts you is a blessing in disguise. That Laura S3 Finale scream should be the final moment of Television History because we have been living in truly delusional mindstates and forgetting about the realities of the real world where death is right around the corner. These theory videos are probably the greatest wakeup call for me as a consumer of entertainment.
I just thought that the ending of S3 was just the studio shutting down the lights at the end of a series, Carrie Page (as the new Audience)’s scream echoing through the oblivion created by the death/ending of the series. These explanations have given me a new way to enjoy this series as now I look at it as something to be interpreted in a myriad of ways, like an abstract art piece, not a digital photograph.
Lynch plucks ideas from deep within his mind through meditation and follows his emotions. He leaves it to others to figure out what he meant, and often is not sure himself. Mary Sweeney said he was watching his own footage once and said, "Ah maybe that's what I meant!" Sometimes people read too much into his work, looking for significance everywhere. For example, the reason The Arm evolved into a tree is because the actor refused to appear in season 3, not for the reasons given in the explanatory video.
I love the thought that nothing about this “deeper” lore about twin peaks actually had any thought behind it from David. He seems to intuitively put things together, and “figure out what he meant by it” afterward.
He said (some long time ago) that no one had ever given him the right interpretation of Eraserhead and all the critics never understood the correct meaning of his film. This was some 20-30 years after he made it. so there has to be a correct interpretation of his movies and tv shows its just in a way that you really have to pay attention to get it, like yourself.
In the future-future, individuals "break down" "codes" placed in artistique expressions. They "work"/"Play" to decipher clues of our present-present activities in recording/understanding. HeH This is a very well recognized interpretation. :D
I do believe Lynch has a coherent set of interpretations in mind. But I also think that because he works from the subconscious or even unconscious, many of his scenes and images may carry meaning that he himself cannot even spell out. He may be able to concretize the main plot and the main implications of a scene, but he may also acknowledge that he cannot fully fathom intellectually all the ways in which a scene or an image felt meaningful to him. Likewise because his emphasis is so much on abstract scenes and images, and less on simply codifying a "message" in an artistic key, some viewers may even see connections that Lynch may not have seen, and they may miss some that are not important to them, but are to lynch and so on. I think this youtuber's interpretation has a lot of value. But I don't think it's the the whole story. It may be the main thrust of each scene put in concrete terms though. And that's an achievement in itself. I
Or maybe the reason Lynch doesn't talk too much about the meaning of his work is because of videos like this? I love the video but still I don't get your logic, you think he doesn't talk about it because he's scared of backlash? He's literally the creator lol if anything he gets backlash for NOT explaining his work
I liked the OG video but at 17:40 you show EXACTLY how you stretch. Not needing to say here that your address toward those saying you're stretching is quite bad. Like, really bad. Let me break it down. Someone says you stretch, say stretch too much into being about tv. You say stretching means: force. Then you say forcing means: we think you are making complex ideas too simple. This is not what people mean. Obviously. Stretching means applying your ideas too broadly, too too much. To more than your ideas apply to. Simple. And this fault in the OG piece is shown here when you overcomplicate and misapply something you simply want to say, that it's okay to put a cap on what something means. You are stretching what you want to say onto a defense against stretching. It's ... Kind of amazing.
The interpretation of Lynch at 5:14 is also a good example of the flawed hermeneutics of this author. Lynch explains how he gets ideas that don’t seem to relate at first, but then get related later by new ideas. The author of this video claims this means “there is a single purpose that unites [the ideas] and careful planning to make sure that future ideas also serve that purpose,” but this conclusion does not follow at all from the evidence. Rather it’s more the projection of this author’s intentions onto the work of Lynch. That seemingly unrelated ideas can later be related by new ideas, I would argue, speaks more of the magic or alchemy of art, and not that there is a prefigured intention of trying to shoehorn all these ideas into one mold that serves a single purpose. In fact, that seems like exactly the opposite of what an artist is trying to do, but unfortunately that’s what this author does to Lynch with his attempt at a totalizing interpretation.
Yes, the logic in this follow up seems thinner than in the original video. There’s some things that are right, but there’s somethings that are extremely weak. The woman in the red dress is a fun, Twin Peaksy, idea. It’s not some secret clue to unravelling the mystery of Season 3. The Log Lady Introductions are painful nonsense. They were clearly thrown together extremely quickly, and designed to “add to the mystery” without really adding anything at all (mostly to boost the repeat viewings after the show was sold to Bravo). If you want proof that Lynch wasn’t behind everything, controlling everything, as part of some convoluted master plan, all you have to do is look at the fact that the killer was revealed. Lynch did not want that. He was dead against it. But Frost thought it was a good idea, and so it went ahead.
7:17 This is what you are getting wrong. The difference between the big picture and details. You probably nailed the main ideas 100% but then went over the line and stretched those ideas to explain all the unimportant details. The big ideas are there, and can be deciphered by clues. But there is a line where the big picture ends and there are smaller details. The meanings of those details aren't "hidden" by Lynch. He doesn't hide them. They are hidden to him as well. It's surrealism, not symbolism. The meanings literally don't exist because those things weren't created consciously. And the purpose of those details was to add to the feel, not to the meaning of the show. Those are Lynch's pillow shots. The scene with the woman in red and Desmond explaining the ridiculous "clues" feels like it is exactly mocking that kind of thinking, not supporting it. I.e. if all the details were consciously created and fully explainable, they would be as ridiculous as the woman in red.
Yes, It's a take I can share. Lynch definitely come across as someone who "goes with the flow" but his art and creative process are so in touch with one another that he's able to unconsciously create an environnement that he cannot fully explain himself but still make sense inside the frame it is presented because his art and unwritten rules are so developed that it became second nature.
I agree that these videos do very well at uncovering some of the major themes and "framing" ideas of Twin Peaks and become less supportable once they move into free-associated interpretations of the "details" as you call them. At the same time, I do not necessarily assume that these "details" are meaningless or other than symbolic for Lynch. Surrrealism can include deliberate symbolism. There is no reason to assume that Lynch did not have symbolic intentions for every image or decision he made. That said, I do not think Twin Perfect's arguments are rational or supported by any concrete evidence more convincing than your average internet conspiracy theory. I think he is very good at summing up overarching themes and some symbolism which, in my opinion, are fairly obvious, but once he starts getting into the nitty gritty his "evidence" becomes a creative process of free association that is definitely similar to Lynch's process but does not necessarily accurately excavate and expose Lynch's intentions or "ideas." This isn't to say I don't appreciate them! But, then again, the dangers of conspiracy theories and their similarity to the creative process of turning abstract ideas into art is also a theme in the new Twin Peaks series and Twin Perfect's overall presentation seems to mimic the "corrupted" authority of conspiracy theorists as opposed to the "purity" of art making. Or does it....?
@@blacksun26 Get a pen and paper quickly draw something. Did you think about each line consciously? I don't think that any great artist of any art form is capable of creating *everything* consciously. Every artist needs to be a Dadaist partly. Think of composers like Bach or Mozart. These guys spewed literally hundreds of masterpieces. Of course, they were experts in music theory, but do you think they consciously crafted every piece of every melody or every chord of every progression? That would be insane. It would be ridiculous. A large chunk of every great creative work needs to be just felt, not thought through.
@@NolanZewariligon I completely agree, but what you are referring to is an understanding of "conscious" that we could have a long philosophical discussion about and what I was referring to was a decisive act of editing and refinement while making art that involves choosing one image, sound, structure (and so on) over another image, sound, and structure...all done with a deliberate intent (even if it is just a matter of "taste" or "feeling.") This does not mean that one cannot choose to accept or incorporate randomness, but it is often a conscious decision when one decides to do so and it is DEFINITELY a conscious decision when editing and refining one's work into a final product for presentation to others. At that point those unconsciously drawn lines made during a quick sketch are definitely refined into something purposeful. If I choose to leave one of those initial random lines it is because there is a reason for it. That isn't the same thing as the kind of randomness that the Dadaists often embraced (...though even they were purposeful and made decisions to express meaning through symbolism...often in straightforward, clunky ways). Can Lynch's intentions always be understood by a viewer? Did Lynch understand the reason for all the decisions he made? Does everything in his work have a meaning expressed through symbolism? Maybe, maybe not. I was simply saying that there is no reason to reject the possibility of symbolism just because Lynch's style of imagery is similar to Surrealism's imagery. I also wanted to point out that Surrealists weren't all about just going with the flow and expressing abstract "feelings." I am not saying that all the images in Lynch's films are symbolic in some basic coded way, I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that NONE of them are...or even that most of them aren't! Honestly, we just don't always know. That's an ambiguity he plays with.
One major reason I struggle with analysis of Lynch is moments in the show where Gordon will say something like “and 10 is the number of completion.” Now you’re in a wacky arbitrary place and it loses mesh with the other abstract concepts that seemed to fit together. There are so many points of inflection, as it were.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TLBjiHvkKtE/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the core 'Lynchian' experience is when you kind of understand what's going on, and at the same time you don't. Mystery and explanation at the same time, intertwined.
That's what makes his art so great. I think his target audience is actually our sub-conscious minds because he knows when we begin to understand things on that level everything else is germane and connected.
Mystery...explanation...
BALANCE
One may think the core experience of water is getting wet...another just swallowing it to live... yet scientists have analyzed water enough to know it’s two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen and can explain its nature beyond some subjective experience. None of these ideas are incorrect except thinking anything has some one core experience it must be.
@@lookbovine Lol, real mysterious like that aren’t real. Unfortunately in life, things only happen once, and in one way. The truth. If you believe there are multiple truths, thats on you. But I think we are all looking through the same idea, but what we see stand out is based on the individual.
@Stv 83 So it’s definitely what you say it is, but it’s definitely not what I say it is, because art is definitely not definite. It’s so much fun when people use their contradictory ideas to tell others to change. Just watch the damn video so you can get in on the joke and stop acting so childishly contradictory.
"Things exist."
--David Lynch
That's bullshit !!!!!
Lies. That's what 'things' WANT you to believe.
"Things exist, but in a dream, and who is the dreamer?" :D
--David Lynch
There’s sometimes a buggy..
Laura's last scream at the end of the S3 terrifies my soul
Sheryl Lee screams really well.
Modern day Scream Queen. I can't think of any other to date.
for me its the "meanwhile" scream at the end of season 2 for the win. that scream still haunts my freakin nightmares.
@@ryanschwarz3024 oof. So true :'(
I had chills that lasted for about 10 whole seconds.
i could watch another 20 hours of these vids on twin peaks. I watched the 4 hour one like 3 times just to absorb it all.
Steve Osborne Me too.
ok but can we be friends
It was on beddy-bye-tyme repeat for a solid week here.
_Yeah, I realize that I have no life._
TP's 4-hr opus is an external confirmation of many of my own prior intuitions and connections, and more. It is a decoder-ring that I knew we'd get sooner or later. Nice that it only took 2 yrs since the series' completion :)...Oh, the power of the internet!
I was 17-18 when it aired, and though I missed FWWM in the theater, I rented it several times in the 90s.
Back in the day "YOUuuu stOLe th' cORRN!" and "I'm in the Black Lodge with DaleCooper/I've been waiting for YOU" were the main bits that refused to get outta my head.
Same!
your david lynch voice has become a kermit the frog voice in my mind now
I decided that I wouldn't go further than ten comments into the subject matter. I had stopped at yours. Kermit The Frog wasn't on my mind, just his very annoying portrayal or interpretation of the quotations that he is using. Still, Peace and stay well, everybody
It's not easy being green~
@@auturgicflosculator2183 lol.
I wonder if he can do Christopher Walken.
I hate it when he does that voice
Regarding the whole Frost/Lynch thing, I've always felt like Frost was the guy coming up with an 'in universe' mythology to support the meta stuff that Lynch wanted to be doing in terms of symbology and abstractions.
ya I think this dude's metatheory is legit, but it sits over the actual in universe structure of everything. When the in universe can't explain certain things, you understand them in terms of the meta.
Agreed. That is why Frost wrote a book that explained what characters had been doing and Lynch gave us odd cool vignettes with loose structure. I like Frost’s book and Lynch’s vignettes.
@@LeFruFru exactly this. lynch's meta shit is what Twin Peaks is ABOUT, but frost's books and lore is what HAPPENS in twin peaks. i think there is value in analyzing the show from both a subtextual, thematic standpoint and a purely plot oriented standpoint. part of what makes it so good, imo.
There needs to be a text for the subtext to live beneath. I agree that Mark seems to be very excited about the text of Twin Peaks. Even after all these videos emphasizing the Lynch contributions I don’t think they’d fly without the grounding from Frost. There’s a balance to be found there as well. I would say my one criticism of season three is it does feel like its more subtext than text. I’m honestly not disinterested in Mark’s interpretation of what is happening in season three.
@@phillosmaster393 the books never contradict lynch's vision. part of the partnership of L / F during the return definitely demands balance (similar to the themes of the show). i like to view the books (the missing pieces / final dossier) as a companion piece to the show. without both you don't get the whole idea.
Two things:
1- I think the “What time is it?” line from The Return finally is also a reference to the “What time is it?” line from FWWM where one agent tricks the other into spilling coffee into his lap. We as the audience are being jolted awake from the dream.
2- I think Dougies journey of luck is supposed to show us how boring the manufactured good fortune of TV can be if not balanced w tension. That wishing everything would just fall into place for our characters robs the story of substance.
I thought it was a mystery to be continued in TP season 4.
re your 2 - I definitely think it was a direct attack on part of the audience by Lynch, a comment on the simplistic mind set of the mainstream ABC audience who think they know what they want, until the get it.
But the line is "What year is this?" in season 3, which is not the same as "What time is it?" from FWWM.
Dougie's story is "boring" because there is not a lot of conflict, nothing pushing against him, everything simply works.
Is that what you REALLY want out of a story or for a character, though? That saccharine happiness has to be balanced with something, just like that bitter darkness has to be balanced with some creamer.
id appreciate having INLAND EMPIRE explicated.
yes please
YES YES PURLEEEEEEESE
I would also appreciate this
I come up with a new interpretation of Inland Empire every time I watch it.
Inland Empire can't be explained. With bonus material it is completely "free your mind" surreal Lynch's head. IMHO
For me, the best part about the original Explained video was that it attempted to actually find some higher meaning from the show beyond just unravelling the events of the show. Most of the videos here on TH-cam about Twin Peaks, while they may dive into the metafiction on occasion, stick to attempting to unravel the actual mysteries of the show. Making sense of the strangeness with the timeline, figuring out who Judy is, getting the lodges in order. On TH-cam at least this really is the pinnacle of a dive into the metafictional aspects of the show, regardless of whether or not you believe the interpretation is valid. Personally, I can concur with the sentiment that certain associations made within the first video seem to be stretched, but on the other hand so much of it seems to slot right into place. I don't think it's perfect, but the video really is the perfect springboard into trying to understand the show for yourself on a symbolic level, organizing metafictional associations in a way that's on par with university level symbolic analysis, boiled down for us mortals.
I agree and I’ve really loved watching his deep dive into the show. And even if everything he’s saying is correct and he got the exact explanation down to a T, it still doesn’t change how wonderfully weird, absurd, emotional, and fantastic the show is. If anything, it’s a testament to Lynch’s talent that he could take something rather “obvious” and turn it into what he did.
I agree. Sometimes I wonder if there could be a decent amount of confirmation bias with his interpretation, but at the same time I think it makes a lot of sense too. I rewatched the entire series after watching the explainer and the show still sucked me in even as I tried to view it with the lens Twin Perfect offered. There are a lot of mysteries you can still try to pick apart for yourself, and his video gives you the tools to do it. In a certain sense, the explanation can make the idea seem smaller, but it also makes it feel a whole lot bigger too.
I agree that there is an interesting two-level approach to understanding Twin Peaks: the *first* is a surface-level analysis of how to make sense of the story. In this, we try to understand where Major Briggs has been, who Judy is, what’s happened to Audrey, why Ben Horne keeps hearing a mysterious harmonic sound, etc. Trying to understand these things is certainly not shallow and it’s a valid story in itself with incredible complexity and interweaving themes and harmonies. The *second* level to Twin Peaks is what our broadcaster here has done in trying to understand the meaning of the show itself as a complex mirror of the complexities of television, empathy, audience fatigue, and so on.
It’s an interesting fact that we can, for ourselves, have a view of the meaning of the story and a view of the meaning of the show that are almost entirely independent of each other. It’s brilliant and thanks to our broadcaster here, an idea I’m not sure I would have realized any time soon. There’s so much complexity to this.
Bulaba Jones and really that’s how a lot of things are. Tons of movies and TV shows have underlying meanings and the plot and characters are all metaphors used to convey the overall message. Like Star Trek, Bladerunner, LOTR, Chronicles of Narnia, etc.
I sort of understand when people say that "he stretches things", but not in the sense that he is trying hard to confirm his hypothesis but simply in the sense that he really says a lot of things in 4 hours. I honestly cannot possibly remember every single thing he said, but here are the elements of his interpretation which deeply resonate with me. (1) The explanation of the Monica Bellucci dream: it comes early in his 4 hours video and, to me, it is spot on. Believe it or not, I actually interpreted that sequence in exactly the same way. I told to myself: «Hold on! That's not an actress playing a character called "Monica Bellucci". That's the real Monica Bellucci, who lives in Paris». (2) Cooper's superimposed face in the Part 17 of the Return: he never left the red room, he is the dreamer and, since he is us, we are the dreamers. By the way, the title of Part 17, in which Bob is killed in a sort of 'tulpa' Twin Peaks show, is "The past dictates the future". (3) The ocean of unbounded consciousness: this is a well known concept in Transcendental Meditation.
I’m old enough to remembering sitting down in the floor at my dad’s house to watch twin peaks. I really have enjoyed your thoughts on this show, and, they have helped me to appreciate the 3rd season more. I think I may be in that minority, as the 3rd season felt, well, wrong to me. I never could explain it, but it just didn’t feel right. I think I may have subconsciously picked up on some of this because I never really saw, and maybe it was my age being 12 in 1990, the supernatural aspects as being actual otherworldly supernatural. To me they were unexplainable, not like a spirit in the closet, but just some kind of mystery that felt right, but always just out of grasp of an explanation. Being at the age I was, it just made everything in the show have this air of wonder about it. To my young mind, obviously not having some intellectual understanding of the surreal, so much of the show just felt out of my ability to understand; but not in an uncomfortable way; it just felt like my life at the time; that young so many things were there, I just didn’t understand them, but they were no less enjoyable for it. I could just accept that I couldn’t explain. I guess in the end my mind hadn’t yet reached that point of being over complicated and analytical and I could just accept the simple as it was. I didn’t need an explanation, I just enjoyed the show for what my limited reason could understand. All these years later, listening to your interpretation has brought some of that back to me, and given me a chance to view everything I knew in a whole new light. My only disagreement with you, concerning the original video, is that watching it would take the mystery away, simplifying everything to a conclusion; in point of fact, it’s given me more mystery in my experience of twin peaks; forcing me to re-examine my own conclusions of the show, which I must say, I was blessed that it was at a time in my life when I could accept the strange with wonder and just enjoy twin peaks for what it was to me; just a good show. Thank you for helping me get some of that mystery back, and allowing me to re-examine my own ideas.
I feel like Dougie at the slots seeing another TP video from Twin Perfect after thinking the original 4.5 hour video was the only one.
*_Helloooooo!!~_*
and in that moment we were all mr jackpots
In italian is better :
BUONGIORNOOOOOOOOOO
HEELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Dougie Jones.
@@LegendLength Vegas Dougie deserves a show, absolutely
I feel like the "just feel" approach is good for the first run through of any David Lynch film. This should be followed by mulling it over and rewatching before coming to a conclusion.
Lynch truly is the Wizard of Oz here. The answers are actually simple, but it's the bells and whistles concealing them that make it all interesting. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
You're both wrong
No you're both wrong.
Annnd you’re all wrong
yes, he is the wizard of us, as in, who is behind Lynch? get it?
Gold Standard ;)
Im a painter and I can completely relate to the pain it causes me to over explain my work. If it could have been an essay, it would be already. The thoughts feelings the audience experiences viewing the work is so much more nuanced and powerful. And you can *still* interpret the core ideas of the images but its never the whole picture and by itself cheapens the work.
Twin perfect is terrified of ambiguity and the unknown and needs to 'solve' everything. His view of people and the world seems shallow and restricted by fear and neurosis.
I’ve watched the videos a few times but I don’t remember if anything was said about the Bookhouse boys. In the fourth episode of the first season, Big Ed, Harry, Hawk, James meet In a secret place where coffee is free and just before this event, Harry says that Twin Peaks has always been a different place... That people always fought against evil, that there is something evil in the woods ... It is strange that this was never mentioned in the series or in the film again.
That episode wasn't written or directed by neither Mark Frost nor Lynch
That’s why it always bothered me that Harry didn’t believe Cooper when he told him Ben Horne isn’t the one who killed Laura
Dale did mention it to Harry in season two. He said he believed the evil in the woods is actually the evil from the black lodge
= a possible metaphor for such organisations as the Freemasons
@@charmicarmicat2981 I think by that point, Truman (like the audience) just wants the answer. He has evidence against Ben Horne (which perhaps feeds his preexisting bias) and by that point, it’s enough for him to charge him with Laura’s murder. Note, however, that Cooper backs off when Truman challenges him about letting Horne go, which sets up Truman to trust Cooper and go along with him in that strange gathering at the Roadhouse, where everything is revealed.
I’ve often thought how different the original show would have been if it came out even ten years later, when DNA evidence had become more of the norm. It would have been a lot harder for BOB to “hide.”
"When you develop ideas wordlessly in your head, it's hard to explain them in a way that retains their tone. When you explain them in the most straightforward way, they can come off... not so well, or at least, not the same.
" This comment about your work is not mine but I agree 100%
Just wanted to say that I really love these videos and your entire theory. It gave me an enhanced affection for the series and Lynch.
David Lynch might very well be unaware of his own motivation for creating Twin Peaks.
This is what I thought, because many of the applied meta answers presented here, are in a more loose sense relatable to say Universal Truth, which David was above all, searching for through his work, I believe.
MCMicel1979 Yes, and in some form or another, might that not be what we're all doing?
Looking back, the best decisions I made weren't exactly rational. The important ones were intuitive and seemed to jibe with my soul - they felt necessary - others were simply messy and ill conceived, hard to own, but luckily of less importance and may perhaps even have provided me with some usable experience and toughness, I don't know...
Who knows what would've happened with alternate choices, right?
Hallands Menved Right. The way David cooperates with the writers (Frost) implies this as well. It’s more about faith in the idea and the intuition then it is about trying to force the perceived into fruition, which implies knowing exactly what one is doing I would say.
The 4 hour explainer was FANTASTIC!
Tank NDG absolutely
No it wasn't. It was reductive and banal.
@@shaykhriyadh in your opinion, of course
@@shaykhriyadh i think you mean bad anal right?
ffs, ive watched the show soo many times and lauras scream still scares the sh*t out of me
You know, it's interesting, as a middle schooler watching TP for the first time, Bob was the scariest thing about the show. Now, I think it's Sheryl Lee's scream. It's like fear made manifest. That woman must have vocal chords of iron.
@@LegendLength that piece of shit came out of nowhere. It scared me first time
@@vaelethun I still think Bob is scarier. Just looking at the dude gives a shiver down my spine honestly. Him and sheryl made the best combo on horror TV to this day in my opinion. Everytime I hear her scream I always get shook if Bob is going to pop out of nowhere and just kill her. 😭
Sheryl really showed her acting in the end of season 2 in the black lodge.
@@LegendLength Oh yeah, that startled the hell out of me also. I'm not saying nothing else was scary as hell, haha
@@GaMeOvEr12454 Definitely; Frank Silva has a face made for horror. Seeing him again when I was rewatching TP this past month, especially that first time with Sarah Palmer, was always disturbing as hell. But I dunno, something just shakes me to the core about Sheryl's scream. It's like *overwhelming*, almost unnatural. She's a great actress, and it's a shame people shrug her off, especially with how much she gave in Fire Walk with Me.
Watching Twin Peaks: The Return, I noticed its likeness to The Odyssey and the TV-shaped glass box clued me in to some level of meta-commentary going on, and those two observations helped me feel satisfied with the season and its ending while still not understanding it all that well. I didn't pull too hard at either thread and unravel all the pieces, I don't know how far I would have gotten. It was really thrilling watching these and recognizing I was on a good trail, both on the Lynch level and the Frost level of signification. You were incredibly thorough. Thanks for all the work you put into this.
As from The Wizard of Oz: it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. "Focus on the donut, not the donut hole" - Lynch
Influence isn't always intention, & intention can be influenced by execution.
I definitely thought some of what you said was a stretch, but I disagree with your analysis of why people thought that. I thought your general analysis is probably right, but I think from that general idea you read things into some of the smaller details that weren't necessarily there
Bobo Boy yeah, but the entire point of that video is that he's claiming it's not interpretation but the truth of the ideas behind the show, something he clarifies in this one
@@KristofskiKabuki He clarified it in the initial video as well, where he basically said he could be wrong, but he is certain he got what was going on. In a much older video Ross implies that he's not really the type to go "IMO" a bunch of times throughout a video.
RippahRooJizah well in that case he shouldn’t be criticising people for saying that some of what he said was a stretch
@@KristofskiKabuki No offense, but perhaps you shouldn't as well?
@@RippahRooJizah Um... I wasn't criticising people for saying some of the things he said in his video was a stretch?
You don't understand David Lynch?
Andrej Tarkovski: Hold my vodka.
16:20 your finger wagging indicates you've been watching too many Lynch interviews latley lol
We live in a world where the word "rape" cannot be said in a serious discussion of ideas. What the fuck.
Marcel Duchamp said the artist is a mediumistic being and that the posterity (audience) decides its meaning or value. Lynch may have intended something but that doesnt mean its correct or the intention is what happens.
I think the only thing I'm rejecting about these videos is the notion that the meta commentary on the state television (which i've always acknowledged, even before the Return) is the main driving force for Lynch's Twin Peaks and that any other intended meaning is secondary or an offshoot of that. Not that there's much value in arbitrarily designating weight classes to each interpretation, but your guess is as good as mine when it comes to distilling the single most important theme Lynch had in his head when deciding work on Twin Peaks. Who knows really. But I don't doubt this interpretation. My problem with the initial 4 hour video was with the presentation. "It's over guys. TWIN PEAKS HAS BEEN SOLVED! It's all meta commentary on television duuude. Everything else is secondary to this. Lynch certified." This follow up video certainly helps dampen the attitude that I perceived as being a bit overly confident for a theory that, while true, could have been secondary itself.
@@borizzle1 A little snark is fine. I dont think Im being the sensitive one when now every time there's a new twin peaks theory video everyone in the comments starts linking this video, like it's the nail in the coffin. And if anyone says they disagreed with it, they get attacked. People have a strange defensive desire with this theory to the point of personal ridicule and it has a lot to do with the way that initial video is titled and presented (which even the author seems to acknowledge in these follow up videos). If anything, the staunch defenders are being sensitive.
@@Drew-vn8rx I can see why it would be annoying to have people spamming the video everywhere. Still I have yet to see a more comprehensive and specific interpretation of Twin Peaks. From what you can actually interpret, it's difficult to find a more prominent theme.
@@borizzle1 Well that may always be the case, as Lynch said, "the mystery is more exciting than the answer". Its not meant to be "solved". I do love the videos by Corn Pone Flicks, Wow Lynch Wow, and Take The Ring. Some recommendations
@@Drew-vn8rx thanks I'll check them out
@@Drew-vn8rx People like the satisfaction of thinking that the work has been solved, and they don't need to be challenged anymore.
Any new interpretation risks taking it back to a state of chaotic ambiguity.
Thanks a lot! It was a pleasure to listen to your point of view. I'm from Russia. I'm Twin Peaks fan since 1997. it was shown on TV. And it impressed me by its atmosphere.
Just wanted to state that i'm stupid. Am I the only one?
me too.... duh
Let me just say that not only have you convinced me, you've also helped me enjoy Lynch's movies better in general. Mullholland Drive was always my favorite movie, but I used to just think of it as surrealism. Learning that Mr. Lynch actually intents his movies to have a meaning as well as a commentary on art, and then re-watching Mullholland Drive for a sixth time, suddenly it made perfect sense. And it was an amazing moment to explain exactly just what the hell happened to my parents. So hat's off to you, Twin Perfect.
Now I challenge you to explain Inland Empire, because I can't.
I know I’m coming to this three years late, but I think your idea of surrealism is misinformed. Surrealism doesn’t preclude intent, it just offers that intent in a way that is meant to engage more with the subconscious mind than the intellectual, logical mind, which is exactly what Lynch does.
Lynch’s art is surrealist, and it has intent.
I think a lot of people see something they don’t understand and mistake it for something without meaning, and since surrealist art often obfuscates its meaning, they assume that surrealism and hidden intention are mutually exclusive. But if anything, watching these videos should show that they definitely aren’t. Sometimes you just have to look deeper.
@@dingus_maximus
What is a few years in the face of discussing the nature of imagination an art ?
I must confess my interpretation of surrealism as being detached from grounded reality is almost certainly coming from reality, as important as it may be, boring me to tears. Not to the point of pure nihilism, mind. But present me with a mesmerizingly unique aesthetic to the tune of "Gotta Light ?" and my subconscious will tend to shut off critical sense and just bask in the utter beauty of this dreamlike world. I am not saying "This makes no sense." I'm saying "Oh boy oh, boy, it makes no sense !"
So, of course, I cannot pretend to be in any kind of objective vision here. But at the same time, while my psyche tends to stay in that nebulous cloud of unexplainable space, I can also recognize the commitment to reality through the prism of dreams David Lynch provides.
I'm just irredeemably committed to adoring nonsense for what it is. I'm just still grounded just enough to appreciate that Lynch's work is actually very methodical.
@@omega2279 Wasn’t expecting a response but I appreciate it a lot, and I especially like your philosophy and how you expressed it. If I implied that just sitting back and enjoying something surreal without engaging with its deeper meanings was a lesser way of enjoying something, I apologize because I completely agree with you. The thing that drew me to Lynch’s work the most was the presentation, for sure. I think, especially for a first time viewing, it’s honestly comforting to sit back and just let it all wash over you. That’s where the magic comes from, and as much as I like rewatching Twin Peaks, nothing can perfectly replicate that initial viewing where I was strapped in and had no idea what was happening.
Let’s continue to enjoy Lynch’s wild ride and figure it out as we go! 👍
The core explanation from the 4+ hour video has been on Reddit for a couple years now. What I appreciate with these videos is the effort you put into this massive deep dive that wonderfully expands on it. It also really shows the brilliance of what Lynch and Frost achieved.
What’s the name of it ?
A good analogy for how you explained interpretation would be a kaleidoscope. A central item that's interesting on its own but is made much more interesting when viewed through a lens that abstracts it.
You can even view it from different perspectives to see entirely different things
Exactly. His video is simply pointing out how we are all staring through the same kaleidoscope, David Lynch’s idea. Glad to see others see this as well, lot of needless haters in these comments, saying their view through the kaleidoscope is the only way it can be viewed. I say people like that, don’t even realize theres a kaleidoscope at all.
We are like the dreamer who dreams then lives inside the dream. But who is the dreamer?
That’s the clue that lead to me think this was a dream a man named Richard had the night his wife Linda left him. Don’t know if I’m right or now but I like to think I’m close either way I love David Lynch’s mind he is an artistic genius. The way he tells a story is truly unique.
Rosseter, first off--thanks for making these videos; they are extremely thought-provoking and the arguments are on-the-whole well-reasoned, well-supported, and convincing--there were dozens of ideas you shared that were "a-ha" moments for me while watching. That said, part of putting academic-style material into the world is that there will be responses from the audience--it's why there are peer-reviewed scientific journals, for example. This process of response, questioning, and engagement is called critique, not criticism--the need to respond to "the critics" and belabor the point that "you're right" is not a great look and doesn't exactly elevate your initial piece. It's clear you've put a lot of time, attachment, passion, and effort into making the material rewarding, but getting defensive when people disagree or challenge points you've made isn't productive.
You mention in this video that people found some of your ideas "a stretch," and I agree--conclusions like the woodsman/electrician "planting" electric poles because he has a stick, or the spiraling section about Lynch's son with the mask, are simply not as well-supported as some of your other arguments--and THAT'S OK! Not every assertion is going to have an ironclad explanation, and you may be right, or you may be wrong, but the process of making the assertion, if it's got at least some support, is what has made reading about Twin Peaks theories interesting for going on 30 years. It's OK for people to disagree or challenge an idea and it doesn't necessarily diminish its value if it does have basis in evidence.
One nuance I think you miss when stressing your "correct" interpretation and the somewhat paradoxical validity of other interpretations is that great art is not only born from its creator's original idea, but if it's actually good, it'll be DESIGNED in such a way that it represents not only that idea, but also much more--Lynch is clearly a master of this! By beating the dead (white?) horse that there's a single correct interpretation, you risk turning a blind eye to the richness of imagery, themes, and unique expressive elements that the medium of film/TV offer to convey open-ended meaning beyond and IN ADDITION TO the core idea. It's not that your explanation isn't right, it's just that art doesn't end there! It reminds me of the classic Marxist literary interpretation that every work of fiction is ultimately about class struggle--yes, you can validly interpret almost any work of fiction through that lens, but does that mean that's ALL THERE IS to it, or there aren't innumerable other layers of valid meaning? Of course not, and by focusing solely on one pet interpretation, you stand to shut out other things that might simultaneously be there. I'm not of the camp that says it can't be explained (like I said, I buy into most of your interpretation), but I do believe that the series is also meant to intellectually baffle but simultaneously evoke a strong emotional response, and that the path to interpreting its truth lies in the convergence of those emotional and intellectual clues. This idea and your ideas aren't mutually exclusive. So, I welcome your interpretation as one facet of understanding this art, alongside many more!
I'm looking forward to watching the "EVEN MORE Evidence" video and urge you to focus on that kind of content--the actual ideas and interpretations, which are what's actually interesting, rather than focusing on responding to people who disagree or challenge points you've made. Imagine if David Lynch spent his time not creating more art, but going online and correcting every person who shared an interpretation of his works. Yikes! Respect to you for your gargantuan contributions!
Good comment!
excellent comment :)
i watched all three seasons and the movie and my interpretation is that twin peaks is all about dualities and a contemporary and creative expression of some of the oldest (good vs evil/light vs dark) stories in our world. coffee (bitter) vs donuts/pie (sweet), Laura Palmer (blonde) vs Maddy Ferguson (brunette), Black Lodge vs White Lodge, etc. even the name, TWIN peaks, alludes to the overall theme.
“Cable television is the new art-house.” -David Lynch
There’s a correct interpretation; yours just isn’t it.
You’ve got a few things right, and so many things wrong. Pan out. Yes, it’s meta and self aware as a show, but your thesis only makes sense if the “real world” is an accurate representation of base reality, and is therefore totally ontologically different from the realities in the show. You might believe that personally, but the show itself takes a different metaphysical position.
“Just because it’s imaginary, doesn’t mean it’s not real”
"The story really happened because hearing the story happened to you. Just because it was made up doesn't mean the feelings you had while listening to it weren't real."
“Of course it is happening inside your head, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
-Alan Moore
Oh wait...
This is essentially the concept of hyperreality. It exists, therefore it's real. Disneyland and it's cartoon characters are just as real as the city that contains it, Anaheim.
Would you ever do a video on other Lynch projects?
Would love to see that.
Or a video on every film he’s made up to this point 😅
Tom McDaniel what do you mean exactly? Lynch made Eraserhead around when his wife become pregnant and had his first son. I always saw it as his feelings on impending fatherhood.
Tom McDaniel I mean I don’t have to watch a 4.5 hour video to have my own interpretation of what Lynch’s work means to me. But I would love to watch a 4.5 hour video on Eraserhead just because it’s one of my favorite films ever. Also, no amount of dissertation will dissect what Lynch actually intends with his work.
Tom McDaniel lmao okay bud. Great reply? 🤷🏻♂️
"Talking things to death makes them smaller." You said it bro :).
So 4 and a half hours of critique is not beating a dead horse?
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 it would be more like beating the horse to death. This video is beating a dead horse. But also, I think Twin Perfect knows that.
But not talking about them at all makes them disappear. There’s a reason why Twin Peaks has had such an impact on the culture.
Having watched the explainer video, I feel like twin peaks is so much more fascinating than they're originally was to me.
Thank you for sharing this thesis as it gives me motivation to rewatch with a new perspective. I have always appreciated the idea of Twin Peaks, and also struggled to get into it because I felt I couldn’t reach any closer to solving the mystery. Seeing this in 2024, the message is more important than ever. Your way of exploring these themes was well organized and engaging. I thoroughly enjoyed watching each of these videos and look forward to seeing more of your channel. I hope you’ll eventually upload a new video!
"But your opinion is wrong, and I can prove it" - Twin Peaks 2013
if he can actually prove it, then what's wrong with that statement? and "opinions can't be wrong because they're subjective" is a fallacy, because they can be objectively wrong.
@@dildojizzbaggins6969 nothings wrong with it. I just think its funny.
Glad you had the Mark Frost part in the end. Was my biggest issue with the original video because regardless of our perception of involvement Twin Peaks IS Lynch & Frost together
People are getting it wrong. Art should always have many interpretations. Just because this is the central idea behind TP, doesn't mean that other themes like abuse, dreams, alternate realities and such are less important. And also, it doesn't mean that the in-world story is unimportant. A piece of art such as TP has a lot of layers and can work in many different ways.
"Everybody's a detective and whatever they come up with is valid in my mind"
Funny enough, that got me thinking of what David Lynch did to television shows in the 90's being very similar to what Scott Cawthon did to video games in the 2000's. In two different mediums, they both ignited the water cooler effect.
Wonder if Scott Cawthon may have been a Twin Peaks fan...
I think the "meta" levels actually validate the characters of the story even more. It actually gives them more "life", thinking that, probably, Mr Lynch considered them to be "real" and actually CARED about their lots INSIDE the TV realm, so much as he was trying to "save" them from what he thought was corrupting the medium and flooding it with meaningless violence and darkness. To me, that´s super fascinating, something a modern day shaman might do. Magically altering reality through storytelling, and turning storytelling devices and participants into actual human representatives. That´s something that has been done from the beginning of humankind, think of all the gods, demi-gods, demons and spirits representing different aspects of our lives and experiences. He´s letting the TV show talk about it´s own experience and existence, in a way.
That would explain why there's a dichotomy of an underlying story that's a fd up story about incest and rape, with...a congo line dance!!
You lost me at the demon/spirit stuff being related to aspects of our lives.
Are you retarded enough to just believe whatever a dishonest materialistic atheist anthropologist is going to tell you in a book/video?
Spirits and demons are actual beings that exist, but your blind/dumb/deaf ass won't be experiencing that aspect of the world because you're simply not up to par for it.
Simple as that, and God is real.
One God.
Thanks for talking about the TM aspects of this show and how it relates to the integration of the shadow self. First analysis on TH-cam that makes that connection!
Yet, there is a chap called Mark Frost who is as important to Twin Peaks as Lynch himself. Yet, obsession can make you ignore basic facts.Mark Frost was involved with Fire Walk With Me, and the famous RING is Frost's mythology.
Frost did not write FWWM as he did not want to make a prequel. Lynch wrote the film with Robert Engels, so the ring came from those two working together. Frost definitely is important to Twin Peaks though and The Return.
I woudn't consider myself a critic, once I simply disagree with the interpretation and do not engage in critizing you for a different idea. In my humble opinion, David would never create a show along with Mark Frost, where you would have to get clues from a technical search on Google about Alternating Current or from videos of interviews with Lynch, for example. I think it's bigger than that. It's very easy to condense figurative ideas into some metalinguistic concept, and that's, by the way, not David's style, let alone Mark Frost. For instance, people do the same thing with Eraserhead: they say Henry was the reflection of Lynch and that the movie is about the nightmare of parenthood in his mind, while he says that it's his most spiritual film and that Henry's character is a much wider reflection of our own society! And, furthermore, I don't think it's right to totally ignore Mark Frost great influence on the show, basically supporting the whole interpretation on only Lynch's ideas.
You don't need to do a Google search to find these themes in the show. You don't even need to know about David Lynch to reach this same conclusion. When I watched Twin Peaks I knew nothing about David Lynch, I didn't even realize he played Gordon, yet I came to a very similar conclusion as Twin Perfect. Doing research outside the show helped me confirm the beliefs I already had about the show and it helped me notice details that I missed the first time around, but this research was not at all necessary for me to understand the show.
I kept saying that for 25 years, people comparing tp to lost, I was like no tp has a solid structure at its very core, it means something cohesive while lost is just a buffer of peace meal ideas. Tp respected it’s audience and it’s intelligence. Well except season 2.
"Mystery is good, confusion is bad." Someone needs to inform JJ of this.
there's a lot of really great stuff in the second series, I don't know why it's disliked
I agree about Twin Peaks being a commentary on television. It makes sense as both Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire get into Lynch's views regarding Hollywood and the movie industry...
If there is one piece of criticism you should ignore, it's people hating on your Lynch impressions.
M1 Couldn’t agree more. Your impression is spot on and adds personality to the narrative. Glad to see (hear) that you kept it in this vid.
I guess we do live in a world of dualities...
Oh my God they're insufferable. Good or not can't stand it lol
@@rmm9222 If the Lynch impressions are that misjudged, it makes you question other things but great work on making these videos nonetheless.
@@RickBobO I disagree. I think he should have done the entire video, every second of it, using his Lynch voice.
Also, Lynch saying every interpretation is valid does not conflict with him saying that every thing he creates serves an idea. The idea, the abstraction, and its translation by him into the screen, is then interpreted by the audience. He didn’t say there is a single correct plot line. It’s a work of art
To anyone who thinks your interpretation is "EASY" ......well those people are nuts........................you really have sit with the show and look deep inside to find even the most surface levels of meaning. You explaining the waves was much like Lynch explaining that the white horse is the white of the eyes.........but I did not understand what it meant until you explained it means looking away.
To any one thinking what twin perfect did here was easy they should know that twin perfect took a nearly 3 year break to most likely make the 4hr vid. I remember thinking man what ever happen to those guys? and boom! a few days later they made the 4hr long twin peaks vid (which coincidentally I had just finished twin peaks a few months before. lucky me!) How any one thinks the amount of research and just sheer work he did here was easy is beyond me, maybe those people need to write dissertations for fun.
@@MrAarobinson89 Perfectly said.
I watched all of these videos and I now feel that my way of watching and interpreting Twin Peaks is by understanding it's actually 2 stories. There's Lynch's story that's more symbolic and there's Frosts story which feels more literal. I love both equally in perfect balance. In the Return I feel Lynch's ending is the bad but through Frost's interpretation it could be seen as the good ending where Laura defeats Judy and ends the show. I'm going to embrace this way of watching the show cause it's now a show that tells 2 interesting stories, in perfect balance.
That’s a really interesting perspective, that the duality of Lynch’s and Frost’s parallel stories fulfills Lynch’s own quest for balance!
This comment would definitely help reconcile the big "debate" going on between TP and the fandom because TP is explaining Lynch's deeper intentions for the show and the fandom tend to follow the Frost aspects of the show (linear storytelling).
Makes sense why Frost WROTE TWO books before and after the return finished to give the fandom the closures they wanted for the linear aspects of the show.
Also, TP's theory is in line with how most artists deal with a fandom like TP's fandom who always want "satisfactory/logical conclusions/closure" without thinking about the deeper layers of the show.
TP really exposed the Twin Peaks fandom's immaturity & lack of consideration for Lynch's artistry, which is why I root for TP.
Same issue I have with postmodernism or the “all interpretations are valid” philosophy bit of it - yes there are nearly infinite ways to describe and interpret and deconstruct things. No, they are not all valid. Some are more valid than others, and some of the more valid ones are more practical and “real”.
Twin Peaks is explicitly not about blue cows. It is about Laura Palmer, but that isn’t an entire interpretation. It is about the balance of good and evil - now we’re getting somewhere.
It’s about the balance of good and evil in TV and media - still not an *entire* interpretation, but beats the hell out of some blue cow theory.
That’s stupid. David intentionally makes his art so that it can be interpreted differently by different people. I see the point you’re making, and i agree to an extent, but you lack an understanding of the show. I think violence on tv is a PART of the story, but it discredits the entirety of the show when you pinpoint the whole meaning to such a small aspect of the show. The show also focuses heavily on nostalgia and how things have changed, and i also find time and aging to be a big part of the show displayed through many of the older characters played by older actors like harry dean stanton.
@@auglarauglar No, you’re right, it’s just that the “all interpretations are valid” philosophy extends to interpretations that are explicitly not valid. Many, many interpretations are valid. I have a cup of coffee, you could say it’s juice, you could say it’s soup… but to say it’s orange juice would be missing the mark.
Agree with the above. The problem I have with Twin Perfects interpretation is the way it is presented. The presentation suggests that the entirety of the Twin Peaks narrative can be reduced to a simple formulaic idea. I know thats the way Lynch talks about his work, but its just not how film or literary theory works. Of course there are interpretations that come closer to a intended meaning of a text or movie, but that doesnt mean that you arrive at a place where every possible question of the piece is resolved. Even with the most simple detective story, one can still ask questions about some aspect of the story, even when the murderer has long been found. So long story short: Where postmodernist theories might allow for too much room for interpretation, Twin Perfect, in my opinion, allows for too little.
@@DoctorLazertron ig it’s just taste. I like being able to look at the show as something that doesn’t have a definitive meaning, or rather doesn’t need to have a definitive meaning. That’s shere a lot of the enjoyment comes from for me.
You 100% can't tell me what postmodernism is without googling it
Yes, Keep going. I finished the second part just a sec ago.
Perfect twin slaying the game
I really appreciate the hard work that goes into these analyses and I love how it provides a dialogue for other viewers - it creates a sense of community, and that's wonderful. However, there is a good deal of presuppositions that are occurring. The first of which lies on a phrase called the "intentional fallacy," which I imagine Lynch is aware of. We suppose that the words that are coming from Lynch are indeed the truth when in art this is just not the case. There is his viewpoint, but he is not the one that determines what his art is or even what it does. That will always be contextual because art is a living document - an object "sculpted in time," as Tarkovsky put it. Also, this does not include what his word "does, " as opposed to what "is." And because it lacks this analysis, it's naturally incomplete. Jonathan Rosenbaum and other contemporary film critics are away of this and create their essays based largely on these principles, which is why their writing is very interesting because it takes into account both authorial, personal, formal, and cultural points of view - this creates a more honest interpretation of an art object, rather than one that is solely concerned with the artist alone. Also, even though "auteur theory" implies that a film director (including producer, writer, and more!) is the sole creator of the work, that's just not at all true in film and television, where there is an entire cast and crew that's to credit the work. This may be more true in say, photography or another fine art, but it's not easy to justify in multimedia art.
This is a point worth making, but also ultimately a semantic one-and not really inconsistent with the argument of the video. We could retitle it "An Overarching Allegory Consciously & Intentionally Embedded in Twin Peaks by David Lynch Explained" without injury to the thesis (if not, perhaps, the viewer count). It doesn't foreclose (and I thought Rosseter said as much here) other meanings embedded, consciously or unconsciously, either by Lynch or other co-creators, nor alternative readings the text might support & which might be interesting or illuminating whether or not they were in any sense intended by any of the creators.
Pseudo-intellectual drivel, if I make a piece of art and intend for it to mean one thing then it doesn't matter in what context or culture the art exists in, it means what I intended for it to mean. I hate this obsession with relativism and undermining objective truth. That being said, I really think this guy is wrong about a huge amount.
Charlie Darmour This is one of the most fart-sniffing comments I've ever read.
Man deconstructionism is poison. Art is not a "living document" who's meaning changes with the times as we put our own feelings and biases into it decades or centuries after it was created.
The meaning of the original art remains unchanged, as it itself is unchanged. What has changed is us and so instead of seeing what was originally meant, we take it, using our own context as a filter and see what we want to see, not what was meant for us to see.
@@Gotterdammerung05 Thanks for your reply. This still does not nullify an argument regarding the intentional fallacy, nor does it nullify an argument over the types of meaning that can be generated toward an art object. If you think that there is only one meaning an art object can have, that is false. Artists and art critics/historians over millennia have spoken to this, including Lynch himself. In fact, Lynch has stated since the beginning of his career that he is categorically opposed to giving an audience the "meaning" of any of his works. And, yes, art does change over time, usually when certain sociopolitical events occur, but not exclusively when they occur. For example, WW2 shed light on the work of Leni Riefenstahl and contextualized her films. That's not to say that they aren't still brilliant, but it puts them in a different context, likely diverting from the context she originally intended.
Also, it's good to point out that meaning doesn't occur at one level. For instance, David Bordwell has posited at least four levels of meaning, including Referential, Explicit, Implicit, and Symptomatic. At what level are you critiquing a work? This context makes a difference.
And, we haven't even touched on the fact that art objects go beyond cognition and "meaning-making." Art elicits feelings, memories, biases, and so on, that all color individual meaning making. At the individual level, these are important and are most of the criticism I see on the internet by laypersons, but it's often taken literally with complete disregard for other levels of critique. Good film critics such as Jonathan Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Pauline Kael, NerdWriter, etc. are good at balancing these elements; most "content critics" are not.
5 hours of theories with 20 minutes for potential mistakes. Man is confident
the one possible contradiction in what you say is, if Lynch is intending to correct the imbalance in the zeitgeist by injecting depth where there's shallowness and confronting chaos and fear in the zeitgeist with a view to restoring love and peace or something (I forget what you said exactly) isn't the overwhelming effect and substance of his work, Twin Peaks and especially The Return just that, fear and chaos? I feel Lynch produces negativity himself far more than anything else. It reminds me very much of the early Surrealists' stated intent of trying to create "hallucinatory nightmare states" à la Dali & Yves Tanguy.I find the fun and illuminating things in his work ultimately are just like bait and the cumulative, longer term effects are to gradually drag you into a black pit of a certain type of consciousness. I don't sense good intentions or spirit in his work. But maybe that's his whole idea, to take you into the black pit of the unconscious to see if you can work your way out of it into consciousness in terms of the absolute sense of the unified field of infinite consciousness you can experience through TM. It seems like a Lynch thing to do to confront a perception of fear and chaos in the zeitgeist by producing shows that ultimately are most notably full of those same things themselves. Perhaps the answer then is that while flawed in its execution in that sense, he's over-intellectualising the expansion of this idea in the way that intellectuals and aesthetes can do and out of touch with the reality of what his shows are full of and the inherent contradiction between supposed intent and execution. The Return being a brutal and exhausting experience I could only watch once, as brilliant as it is, the thing that struck me is that to me, Frost and Lynch are too obsessed with and hung up on power and that's the flaw in their work. To my mind all that darkness and brutality ultimately serves thematic, psychological and aesthetic fixation with power which is ultimately unfulfilling and destructive which they themselves are unaware of. Like they think it's the ultimate liberator or ultimately fulfilling, are imo are incorrect about that and unaware of it.
After binging this entire analysis series, I find it increasingly difficult not to hear Lynch-impersonation inflections in your regular speaking voice. :))
After watching your original video, and then watching other youtubers attempting to explain season 3, I feel deep within me that your explanation is true. Others people are talking on a superficial level: is Audrey in an asylum? Will there be a bad Cooper spin off?
Until I saw your video I was hoping that another season would be announced to explain what had happened in season 3. But your explanation is so logical, fitting with everything we've seen on screen, and demonstrating an incredibly deep message about the corruption of television, I feel that you have to be correct. I do not believe I would have ever found these answers without you, because I was not looking in the right way.
I look forward to watching the entirety of Twin Peaks again with this new insight. I also look forward to heeding Lynch's message and not watching television anymore. When I saw your video I was on season 4 of 'Sons of anarchy', after watching your explanation it now feels cheap, angry and dirty.
Thank you for taking the time to present your findings so well and for the serious amount of work you must have put in. I always knew Twin Peaks was not just another TV show, right from first watching it aged 16 in 1993. I didn't realise just how truly profound it was.
Thank you.
As long as you're answering criticisms... I find my two biggest problems with yours not answered. The first one is that you consider one singular meaning of an audiovisual media being somehow more interesting to director than the others. It's a very Brechtian approach, but also rather diminishing, one I'm not sure Brecht himself would've agreed with. Foremost that makes me wonder whether you understand how filmmaking works as an art and, for that matter, how art works, collectively and with single author. Yes, artist gives opinion through art and an art object conveys some message(s), but many things which we conventionally consider masterpieces deal with multiple themes. Artists explores subject(s), audience find beauty in it. Sometimes also sense, but beauty, overall, is enough. Why is that so offensive of an idea for something to have multiple layers, ALL of which are right? I mean, I won't pretend I am an expert, because neither 18 years spent on filmmaking nor PhD with my thesis being tied directly to finding meaning in audiovisual media (if from a standpoint of political science) make me one. In my core I am an insecure amateur. I'm not even bringing those for bragging rights, mind you. Just to say that I still feel like a moron even when everything tells me otherwise. The more I learn, the more experience I get, the more doubts I have as a result. And the more I marvel why some people just stop there after a certain point and approach the world from a POV of 'grown-up', simply starting to fail in many aspects and not acknowledging it. As much as my heart bleeds for my own misfortunes on every front, my heart also bleeds for artists, who spend their lifetimes on filmography, discographies, painting catalogs or bibliographies only for someone to tarnish their complex nature laid out in multiple works into something very trivial. And that leads us to another problem of an almost equal magnitude in your critical approach to Lynch: it, consciously or not, borders mocking and bullying. And that's kind of upsetting to see and really weakens the overall structure of your essays. From personal experience things like that also very much come hand-in-hand with confirmation bias. I don't know whether it's how you're seeing it, but for me you come across as someone who will absolutely consider oneself superior to artist for 'figuring it all out', not taking into consideration that there is simply no rivalry between the critic and the artist. Even bad artist with one decent work wins in the long run, because critic's work is a supplement and seldom takes as much time and effort. And your effort, while adequate, just could be summed up with your David Lynch impression. With intonations of your voice. I believe the word is 'smug'. Also 'sensationalist'. That is also how you come across from thumbnails alone. There is an inherent and very jarring mismatch between presentation and theoretical research of yours which I just can't be onboard with. Same goes for everything, starting with the about page of your channel. "Remember it's okay to be wrong!". Do you remember that yourself, though? Because, you see, in my humble opinion doubt is essential. It is especially essential in art. Most of the negativity we associate with art comes from absence of doubt on artist's part: definite (and yet somehow all the more shallow for it) statements, overly bold overdeveloped style. Heck, lack of evolution is also there, as using the same old tricks and not experimenting is the way to avoid doubt. When something is a result of gradual (and oftentimes very painful) trial-an-error development and earned insights it's more in the vein of clarity, however abstract the term is. And when it's something that constantly motivates and dictates your work, that's where bias begins. Just one simple example of that bias: your split screen which is there to illustrate Lynch's and Frost's approaches has 'Invitation to Love' and Frost's books. Regardless of whether you're aware that 'Invitation to Love' in its entirety is written and directed by Mark Frost it just comes off as a pull immediately. Manipulative statement, at best.
agreed
I'm so confused. Your very first statement is to compare the interpretation to someone and then say that person would disagree with it, which...you're the one who brought up Brecht
Thank the Lord someone has pointed this out, I find this guy very irritating and irrationally self-assured, absolutely devoid of doubt. Doubt, in my opinion, is a reflection of intellectual maturity and wisdom.
How to talk a lot and say very little
Just realised something: a digital waveform signal is usually shown as a series of rectangles but the effect on its receiver is to create a zig-zag form that looks like the diagonal lines of the Red Room. I can't remember if this was covered by the Twin Perfect videos so thought I'd mention it here. Also, depending on the lag/latency of the receiver (i.e. if its voltage levels drop immediately/vertically or gradually/diagonally) sometimes the waveform has a sawtooth shape like the circular saw in the original opening!
I think this is a worthwhile observation, and it just made me realize that the diagonal lines also resemble a cartoon representation of an active TV set without a clear signal. The sawtooth shape doesn't resonate with that image to me as well, but I might feel differently when I go back and watch it again.
as both an artist and an experiencer of.... rope, I just want to say that Lynch checking himself into a trauma centre is really quite an understandable action. there are a lot of things I say in my art, but speaking the words and giving it life can be incredibly traumatic, you open yourself in a way that people don’t often do. if anything I’m really glad he recognized and sought tools to deal with that trauma.
as another artist and SA survivor... agreed.
The person making this video is deliberately misrepresenting what Lynch meant. If you read Lynch on Lynch, the first page of which he's quoting, it is clear that Lynch was making a joke exaggerating his feelings about the interview when he said he was going to check himself into the centre. It is certainly a joke in poor taste, but Lynch was joking and the reader is not supposed to believe that he actually did it. I don't understand why the videomaker would so cynically misrepresent Lynch like this, except to present his own point as having more moral weight than it may actually have.
25:50 that really caught me off guard there. My room smells of coffee now.
The old Conan O'Brien 'satellite guest' gag. Haven't seen that in a while.
Clutch Cargo
@@flushfries5633 Also yes
The unified field is neutral. Through mystery questions arise. The human detective capacitors close the circuit and allow the field to flow as the question creates tension in the field. The golden ring is separation from the field as it simulates the tension but closes the circuit apart from it forming a closed circle, closure. It is way beyond meta TV...
The ring is closure? Is that why Chet's story "ends" so suddenly, and also seemingly everyone else who interacts with it?
I must applaud your efforts here. This is easily the most detailed, deep dive with examples and great theories. Really like the overall explanation of the audience, the director, and its relationship to television and film in a meta kinda way. Really really cool. I could have watched the series another 20 times, and never could have come up with this. Truly unique
I 100% agree ❗
In my humble opinion your interpretation is pretty much spot on when it comes to 3rd season... when it comes to the first and second one, and FWWM it's also very accurate, but (yeah, there always have to be some "but")...
Let's be honest here, when Lynch and Frost were writing script for first season they didn't knew how 3rd will look like, or even if it will be filmed for that matter. I would be careful trying to impose 1:1 eg. what woodsman in 1956 said in 3rd season on pale horse depicted in 1st season. Yes, it works, makes sense, but aren't we played here a little bit? Do we really believe that's exactly what they had in mind back in the days? I suppose in some instances we are being made to backwardly impose a lot of definitions, meanings and connections on things which weren't so perfectly thought-out as it might seem, kind of anachronically narrowing it down. It's not so much as criticism towards you, as I would like to point out that such approach in general is a bit idealistic. Simple thing like, given amount of people involved and time passed, the twin peaks mythos inevitably accumulated some minor inaccuracies, and IMO it isn't 100% consistent, that doesn't mean we can't attempt making awesome theories of course.
Similar thing with interviews, I wouldn't assume every time Lynch gives an interview about eg. meditations and stuff, he's leaving clues about his views and working methods which can be picked sentence by sentence and applied 1:1 to explain Twin Peaks, I know sometimes it might seem helpful, but that's just unrealistic, and should be used very, very sparingly.
This is nitpicking, but maybe this interpretation could also use more interplay between other films, mainly Blue Velvet, Lost Highway and Mullholland Drive, as I think those films give a lot of insight into Lynch work and themes, I would say certainly more than eg. interviews with him. Given they are
relatively short/more condensed, they provide excellent reference point.
There are also some minor stretches like attempting to interpret Judy from Chinese, or connecting Monkey with curiosity. It's sketchy, because figure of Monkey packs overwhelming amount of connotations, so many in fact, it seems pointless, I'm pretty sure you could come up with with other meaning which would work in this theory anyway.
Again, that's not to criticize the theory, which I appreciate and loved to hear, every second of that 4-hour video, I'm just pointing out limitations of such methodology.
Huge thanks for your work, you got me thinking on Twin Peaks again, want to discuss all of this with my friends like in the old good days. Thank You!!!
At the end of the very 1st episode the actor Carel Struyken is not listed as the Fireman in the credits. There are just ???????. This means ( to me ) that Dale Cooper has returned after Twin Peaks dies and therefore he is no longer the Fireman because there is no more fire. No more electricity. No more ideas being generated.
It is in our house now!!!!
Thanks again for your awesome explainers !
I'm not trying to diminish the incredible amount of work you've put into these videos but I must say I have two main issues overall.
1. The tone. I read a wonderful piece in Sight and Sound one time when it was discussing the end of The Sopranos and the general gist of it was "ambiguity" is not a riddle. If something is ambiguous it's not saying there is an answer, just that the subject is open to many different theories and interpretations. If your video was like "my take" or "here's a theory" but your general lecturing tone is a bit much. You've done the homework but it's like someone could sit down and cross reference every single story or anecdote from Bob Dylan's life and his music but you can't explain what "Visions Of Johanna" means to me or anyone else. There's also an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Seven of Nine becomes obsessed with information and the moral of the story is with so much data, one could construct so many different scenarios which she does in the episode.
2. You pick what Lynch quotes to dismiss and which to hold as gospel so rigidly to support your points. I've been following Lynch for a long time and his interviews often contradict themselves. If something doesn't fit your theory, you seem to say that paricular quote isn't relevant and then you cling to something he said one time as an anchor for a whole segment of your theory.
I respect the work you did and your love of the show is clear (I also like your Lynch impression for the record!) but there is offering analysis and then there's intellectual posturing and I think you're in the space between these different coloured lodges.
Your first point reads like: The story is intentionally ambiguous, therefore its interpretation belongs solely to the viewer. And objective understanding is impossible, so don't try.
Second point criticizes cherry-picked Lynch quotes in a Lynch analysis, immediately after using cherry-picked comparisons in the first point that have no relevance to a Lynch analysis.
I get no intellectual posturing vibes from this guy, just passion for the series and passion for the detective work. We all reside in the space between, but even so your analogy isn't the best since Offering Analysis and Intellectual Posturing aren't polar opposites. Well Thought-out vs Not Well Thought-out perhaps, examples of both are close by.
@@dl5440 What would be wrong with the first point? like music, like poetry, the reader/ audience can bring their own interpretation to something. The maker of this video has a take on it. I don't challenge that he does. I have a problem with the tone and his dogmatic reading being presented as THE answer and the implication that if you don't accept it you're being obtuse.
The ending of the Sopranos is seen as an ambigious ending. Ambiguity is rare on TV so I feel it's a valid comparison and my Voyager example is when you have so many contradictory things it can be a fools errand to try and construct a straight ahead explanation. I feel both things are vital to the thesis he presented.
As for my second point, Lynch is constantly fessing up to how instinctual his work is and I think it's a bit disengenous to take him saying something like "Well Tv was a bit moribund" and then building a huge theory about that. Lynch constantly shifts the goal posts. Again I feel this is bias. Any sound bite that suits his theory he'll present but I have Lynch on Lynch too and there's plenty in that about how the show is not built to be understood but felt.
Again it's not even his analysis that's the problem. I respect the work he put into this but it's a little bit hectoring and you can respect his take on it and still concede that these are about 6 hours of someone presenting a theory as fact.
@@ThinkingCog You have a problem with the tone of his videos. Sometimes people rub us the wrong way. That's normal.
But beyond your reaction lie idea nuggets that remain unchallenged thus far.
@@dl5440 Outside of making my own videos presenting my thesis, I'm not sure what challange I can offer beyond this simple one. I don't think Lynch cared that much about the state of television in the 90s to construct what this person is insisting.
Lynch wanted to be innovative with the form but this is far too schematic and organised an attack from an artist who is so famously seat of his pants. BOB was the result of a continuty error that was seized upon, how Lynch details creating the Cowboy scene in Mullholland Drive is an anecdote about touching the roof of his car and burning his hand and he suddenly had the image of the Cowboy, my point being, I think a lot of the material here is about feeling and intuition rather than a straight intent to critique. Also there are times where he stretches the material and handwaves it away. The Fire Walk with Me chant for example, Lets just change the spelling there to suit a concept. Don't worry about it.
And yeah people rub us the wrong way but I think presentation here is something that can be knocked for how obnoxious parts of it are.
His editing, the actual production of the video, top notch for sure. I will admit, I enjoyed watching these videos, Hell I've followed them all but this is a thoroughly researched fan theory. It's not the definite reading, no matter what the video titles say.
@@ThinkingCog Let's look at Lynch's instincts and Feeling vs Understanding. His process for collecting ideas is well-documented as is their source. It's highly unlikely that he tries to understand the ideas completely. Instead he feels how they can be included. There is space here for the audience to interpret the ideas, but not the kind of space where all interpretation is valid. As the architect of the story, he can feel and thus know how and why an idea is there without needing to dissect it. But suggest to him an interpretation that doesn't jive and he's the first to dismiss it. Numerous interviewees have experienced this. Maybe the creators of Sopranos or Star Trek would indulge you, but not Lynch, and this is a discussion of Lynch.
As a case study in “what happens when people are just given the answer?”, please see Donnie Darko. The actual, confirmed by the writer, explanation of everything going on in that movie is really, really disappointing.
Haven't seen this interview, but i probably watched theories about it being about predetermined destiny and a loop that could only be finished by donnie making the choice to sacrifice himself.
Richter WLK nope, it was aliens. Time manipulating aliens. Running Donnie through a repeating simulation. “Worlds ending” refer to simulation experiments ending. This is all in the writer/director commentary track. And it’s sad.
@@bmardiney What were the aliens trying to learn?
@@bmardiney that sucks. I think the worst thing about this is that there's nothing in the movie that hints at that, so all the clues that would lead to an explanation basically are red herrings.
@@Cupit29 It's been a while since I've watched/listened to it. I think it was like a test of human nature or something. Like, can all these awful people be saved by one good person. Donnie sacrifices himself for everyone at the end by allowing the plane engine to kill him, thus forcing everyone around him to atone for their sins, kind of. Quite Jesus-y.
I was a person who watched Fire Walk With Me before seeing the actual show, which I watched on Bravo. So I was lucky enough to have the Log Lady's gems of knowledge along with each episode. Which helped put things in perspective, while knowing his feelings toward having his work neutered. So watching season 3, while a complete brain f*ck, made sense in the way it was completely different from the 1st two seasons. I love your breakdowns because not only does it validate my feelings but expands on many other ideas, and I like that. Thank you.
I really wish I had watched the movie before the show
I hate to say this although I’m sure plenty of others have already said it but by virtue of what art is, it’s always a mere fact that art can be interpreted from the perspective that art is made up by a person who makes art, it’s the equivalent of saying that a writer writes, a filmmaker makes films. In other words, it’s a mere starting point. A correct starting point, but by no means the last possible destination, let alone even an interesting destination.
The metafictional layer is obviously there, but to assert its primacy is like reading a poem at the metatextual level only, and then to close the book on it, like saying that it means thought is always going to be trapped in language, or that humans are always going to have to confront their own mortality, etc. It’s not incorrect to say but saying it’s the correct interpretation is also to be missing the point completely.
Because we can say it about anything that was constructed by humans, or through conscious intention. The fact that an artificer can also tailor this metalevel of meaning by being conscious of it, doesn’t mean that this consciousness is the sum total of the entire message, the other levels of meaning are still operating in the art, and are just as important.
So much more important would be to consider the implications of the metatextual starting point in relation to David Lynch as a person living in this world that we all live in, and what is the dream of this world, and who are the dreamers, etc. ?
The point isn’t to know his/the original idea, which is impossible, or impossible to prove, but to consider its function as a symbol in relation to its correlate in reality, that is, our own consciousness, and our connection to the mystery of this world through something like dreams, or the experience of trying to figure something out like Twin Peaks, unsolved murders in history, aliens, occultism, etc.
Well said, I love watching the explained videos because this is what lynch wants, for us to become detectives with feeling and intuition, but my mind was stuck with exactly the elements you describe about authorial intent.
For sure. I hope I can also be clear that I think the interpretation of Twin Perfect is very solid analysis. The major problem I have in the assertion is in it's confidence that it has the last interpretation, or that it's proven what Lynch's original intention was. It's good to have a strong argument, but any interpretation, even the most plausible and well put together and even "correct," still can't claim to have proven what the original intent of an author was. No one ever can. The best it can ever attain to is to be a very solid, more solid than most even, interpretation of a piece of art.
The meta part of twin peaks isn't just something as cheap or shallow as a commentary on "consumable TV violence", the meta is in sync with both frost and lynch in that Cooper is the magician/detective going between two worlds to confront his shadow and redeem the soul of Twin Peaks, and by extension the audience does as well because all of Lynches works require you to become a detective of the dream, enter the shadow unconscious world and find balance. The return is ultimately a work of love on those characters, who are real to both Lynch and Frost. You are right about the interpretation of symbols being clues to a grander Meta dream within a dream narrative, but it's not referencing directly the audience in the way you think, because that would make Twin Peaks the return a cynical joke. Cooper, Nadine etc. they are not stand ins for anything, they are real characters like Lynch says, what the audience does is relate to these characters, and there is a big difference here between identifying yourself with them and empathy/feeling. Finally why I feel you miss a more nuanced view of the meta narratives intent, is because you ignore the death of the author. Whatever lynch intended to say with the meta commentary, it is by definition outside of his control, because it wrests on the audience on what kind of emotional closure or meaning they will get from that work of art (outside of the main narrative structure that is), so a more nuanced view imo wouldn't sum it all up in a tidy sense that the final effect of the show was Lynch just preaching with a megaphone to the audience. Because ultimately it begs the question, why return if there isn't something meaningful in traveling with these characters "between two worlds". It begs the question of artistic integrity and honesty. Other than I'm right there with you that there is a very clearly defined meta commentary and I admire that you took so much time to explain so much. You definitely have the right detectives clues.
I might be commenting on the wring video as I just saw both but I love how you explained how ideas grow. And these videos really helps me analyze a lot of other fiction I enjoy too, and explain why I enjoy them.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought the show was implying that Leland didn't actually kill Laura and that perhaps Leland had a doppelganger of his own.
In the Black Lodge at the end of Season 2, Leland appears and says something to the effect of "I didn't kill her". Then, in Season 3, we see him again in the lodge, asking Cooper to "find Laura".
Leland possessed by BOB when he killed Laura, so I guess you could say his statement is true. But Leland died so I assume only his shadow remains in the Black Lodge.
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 It's really difficult to figure out whether or not Leland himself is meant to be viewed as guilty. The show made me think he was innocent and just possessed, but the way FWWM plays out made me think that Bob is just a metaphor for evil and that Leland was always the one behind abusing and ultimately killing Laura. What I do like about this in retrospect is that Leland's words just before his death can be read into as exhibiting the cycle of abuse (being abused himself as a child, by Bob, and then taking that past trauma out on Laura). That way, Leland being "possessed" by Bob takes on a whole new meaning.
I don't get one thing.. If David doesn't like what was done in season two, made his point during season two finale, made another point in movie and another in return, why he still wants to make another season? Just to make another point how Twin Peaks was lost after season one and how we can't get over with it? Who can't get over with it more, audience or the author?
Aren't you David Lynch's enemy since you're explaining it? According to his quotes.
he never claims to be lynch’s ally
Not necessarily. Watching the explain video has made me want to reexplore and see if it plays out and what could be gleaned from that
An exercise in futility
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
No, he is being exactly what Lynch wanted: a detective. He can't give us closure, because he can't affirm his explanation as fact, it is an explanation attempt. Even if he is right on the money, he still has to sell it to us and we can still not buy it. Perhaps only Lynch has perfect credibility to give us that kind of closure and he's not going to. :)
The ending of season 3 finale episode is Lauras dream from fire walk with me. Thank me later
I'm convinced that Blue Velvet is a prototype for Twin Peaks and that it has the same moral parable.
It exists in the same 'universe' as Twin Peaks, just as Lost Highway, Mulhulland Drive, and many of his films. That 'universe' isn't some structured thing ala the MCU, it's the universe of Lynch's dreams and nightmares surrounding American existence. Women are at once angelic and demonic, men are at once paragons and beasts, the pie is perfect and coffee hot and good while the drugs are hard and the sex is rough, demeaning, and intense. Ever outside influences seem to invade; spirits good, evil and strange influence and direct the events of this dichotomous American Dream which haunts Lynch, and appears in so much of his work. I think there's a tendency to hyperanalyse Lynch and his work in an effort to 'make sense' of it in a way that's ultimately futile and more self-exploratory than anything else. Dreams don't make sense, and more importantly don't have too, because it's all about how it makes you feel in the end.
ABC wanted to do "Blue Velvet" for TV!
The network wanted Frost and Lynch make a series that was like Blue Velvet...
Thats why they went in that direction. Network notes when Lynch was being tapped for a series, they literally placed their wants. They wanted it to be a murder mystery in a Rockwell like setting. Frost and Lynch than realized they wanted Laura Palmer to be dead at the beginning of the show, because of those network notes. Lynch was asked to recreate Blue velvet so he started from there
@@txdust80 Then the overview of Twin Peaks would be that it has the same moral metaphor. Lynch added interesting elements to it (owls/supernstutal occurrences/etc). But the premise is still the same.
@@justinsherman9350 yes
If it's about good vs evil, it can't be put into words, and explaining it won't help at all.
We still have to live it (there is no closure). This series made people Feel (I could not bear most of it, but I remember the original series well).
I just finished watching your four-and-a-half-hour explanation, the sequel and now this, and I think that your interpretation has come the closest to what Lynch's intention really was out of any I've seen before. I've fully accepted it. But I've also found out this: that an (accurate) explanation of a work of art has an analogous effect to closure in a story. Accepting your explanation has actually killed a little of bit of the magic and the mystery of TP for me. I was planning on rewatching season 3 this weekend, but now I find myself wanting to "move forward". This is not a critique of you, you did a great job, I know this was not your intention, but it is what it is. Lesson learned: don't watch YT videos about movies explained! Cheers.
Thing is though, have you read every book of analysis on Twin Peaks for instance? Martha Nochimson's excellent ones?
@@damngoodcoffeetime No. But I should try.
Killing the magic of the show for the sake of waking you up from the false realities that TV puts you is a blessing in disguise.
That Laura S3 Finale scream should be the final moment of Television History because we have been living in truly delusional mindstates and forgetting about the realities of the real world where death is right around the corner.
These theory videos are probably the greatest wakeup call for me as a consumer of entertainment.
Fear not. There is plenty more to it. Much more.
Google “the Master’s Carpet” (images of.)Study it well, then rewatch season 2 ending.
I just thought that the ending of S3 was just the studio shutting down the lights at the end of a series, Carrie Page (as the new Audience)’s scream echoing through the oblivion created by the death/ending of the series. These explanations have given me a new way to enjoy this series as now I look at it as something to be interpreted in a myriad of ways, like an abstract art piece, not a digital photograph.
I actually like this theory so much❗
Lynch plucks ideas from deep within his mind through meditation and follows his emotions. He leaves it to others to figure out what he meant, and often is not sure himself. Mary Sweeney said he was watching his own footage once and said, "Ah maybe that's what I meant!"
Sometimes people read too much into his work, looking for significance everywhere. For example, the reason The Arm evolved into a tree is because the actor refused to appear in season 3, not for the reasons given in the explanatory video.
I'm 100% convinced by Twin Perfect and as a lifelong Lynch fan I feel like it has added a deeper level to my enjoyment of his media
I had to watch that last sentence twice. Then I went "Whoa!" Like Neo.
I love the thought that nothing about this “deeper” lore about twin peaks actually had any thought behind it from David. He seems to intuitively put things together, and “figure out what he meant by it” afterward.
He said (some long time ago) that no one had ever given him the right interpretation of Eraserhead and all the critics never understood the correct meaning of his film. This was some 20-30 years after he made it. so there has to be a correct interpretation of his movies and tv shows its just in a way that you really have to pay attention to get it, like yourself.
In the future-future, individuals "break down" "codes" placed in artistique expressions. They "work"/"Play" to decipher clues of our present-present activities in recording/understanding. HeH This is a very well recognized interpretation. :D
I do believe Lynch has a coherent set of interpretations in mind. But I also think that because he works from the subconscious or even unconscious, many of his scenes and images may carry meaning that he himself cannot even spell out. He may be able to concretize the main plot and the main implications of a scene, but he may also acknowledge that he cannot fully fathom intellectually all the ways in which a scene or an image felt meaningful to him. Likewise because his emphasis is so much on abstract scenes and images, and less on simply codifying a "message" in an artistic key, some viewers may even see connections that Lynch may not have seen, and they may miss some that are not important to them, but are to lynch and so on.
I think this youtuber's interpretation has a lot of value. But I don't think it's the the whole story. It may be the main thrust of each scene put in concrete terms though. And that's an achievement in itself. I
This is what TH-cam is supposed to be. Your videos are entertaining and educational. Bravo.
The reason you're having to make this video is definitely one of the reasons David never talks too much about the meaning of his work
Or maybe the reason Lynch doesn't talk too much about the meaning of his work is because of videos like this? I love the video but still I don't get your logic, you think he doesn't talk about it because he's scared of backlash? He's literally the creator lol if anything he gets backlash for NOT explaining his work
I liked the OG video but at 17:40 you show EXACTLY how you stretch. Not needing to say here that your address toward those saying you're stretching is quite bad. Like, really bad.
Let me break it down. Someone says you stretch, say stretch too much into being about tv. You say stretching means: force. Then you say forcing means: we think you are making complex ideas too simple. This is not what people mean. Obviously. Stretching means applying your ideas too broadly, too too much. To more than your ideas apply to. Simple. And this fault in the OG piece is shown here when you overcomplicate and misapply something you simply want to say, that it's okay to put a cap on what something means.
You are stretching what you want to say onto a defense against stretching. It's ... Kind of amazing.
Haha I know that name... Reeelapse!
Thank. You.
The interpretation of Lynch at 5:14 is also a good example of the flawed hermeneutics of this author. Lynch explains how he gets ideas that don’t seem to relate at first, but then get related later by new ideas. The author of this video claims this means “there is a single purpose that unites [the ideas] and careful planning to make sure that future ideas also serve that purpose,” but this conclusion does not follow at all from the evidence. Rather it’s more the projection of this author’s intentions onto the work of Lynch.
That seemingly unrelated ideas can later be related by new ideas, I would argue, speaks more of the magic or alchemy of art, and not that there is a prefigured intention of trying to shoehorn all these ideas into one mold that serves a single purpose. In fact, that seems like exactly the opposite of what an artist is trying to do, but unfortunately that’s what this author does to Lynch with his attempt at a totalizing interpretation.
Yes, the logic in this follow up seems thinner than in the original video. There’s some things that are right, but there’s somethings that are extremely weak. The woman in the red dress is a fun, Twin Peaksy, idea. It’s not some secret clue to unravelling the mystery of Season 3. The Log Lady Introductions are painful nonsense. They were clearly thrown together extremely quickly, and designed to “add to the mystery” without really adding anything at all (mostly to boost the repeat viewings after the show was sold to Bravo). If you want proof that Lynch wasn’t behind everything, controlling everything, as part of some convoluted master plan, all you have to do is look at the fact that the killer was revealed. Lynch did not want that. He was dead against it. But Frost thought it was a good idea, and so it went ahead.
thunderpeel2001 Arguing that something in Twin Peaks is meaningless is hardly a convincing argument!
You got almost everything wrong
Then what was Twin Peaks about?
Can't wait for more of your work - your Batman V Superman and Twin Peaks videos are amazing!!
7:17
This is what you are getting wrong.
The difference between the big picture and details.
You probably nailed the main ideas 100% but then went over the line and stretched those ideas to explain all the unimportant details.
The big ideas are there, and can be deciphered by clues.
But there is a line where the big picture ends and there are smaller details.
The meanings of those details aren't "hidden" by Lynch.
He doesn't hide them.
They are hidden to him as well.
It's surrealism, not symbolism.
The meanings literally don't exist because those things weren't created consciously.
And the purpose of those details was to add to the feel, not to the meaning of the show.
Those are Lynch's pillow shots.
The scene with the woman in red and Desmond explaining the ridiculous "clues" feels like it is exactly mocking that kind of thinking, not supporting it.
I.e. if all the details were consciously created and fully explainable, they would be as ridiculous as the woman in red.
Yes, It's a take I can share. Lynch definitely come across as someone who "goes with the flow" but his art and creative process are so in touch with one another that he's able to unconsciously create an environnement that he cannot fully explain himself but still make sense inside the frame it is presented because his art and unwritten rules are so developed that it became second nature.
I agree that these videos do very well at uncovering some of the major themes and "framing" ideas of Twin Peaks and become less supportable once they move into free-associated interpretations of the "details" as you call them. At the same time, I do not necessarily assume that these "details" are meaningless or other than symbolic for Lynch. Surrrealism can include deliberate symbolism. There is no reason to assume that Lynch did not have symbolic intentions for every image or decision he made.
That said, I do not think Twin Perfect's arguments are rational or supported by any concrete evidence more convincing than your average internet conspiracy theory. I think he is very good at summing up overarching themes and some symbolism which, in my opinion, are fairly obvious, but once he starts getting into the nitty gritty his "evidence" becomes a creative process of free association that is definitely similar to Lynch's process but does not necessarily accurately excavate and expose Lynch's intentions or "ideas."
This isn't to say I don't appreciate them! But, then again, the dangers of conspiracy theories and their similarity to the creative process of turning abstract ideas into art is also a theme in the new Twin Peaks series and Twin Perfect's overall presentation seems to mimic the "corrupted" authority of conspiracy theorists as opposed to the "purity" of art making. Or does it....?
@@blacksun26 Get a pen and paper quickly draw something.
Did you think about each line consciously?
I don't think that any great artist of any art form is capable of creating *everything* consciously.
Every artist needs to be a Dadaist partly.
Think of composers like Bach or Mozart.
These guys spewed literally hundreds of masterpieces.
Of course, they were experts in music theory, but do you think they consciously crafted every piece of every melody or every chord of every progression?
That would be insane.
It would be ridiculous.
A large chunk of every great creative work needs to be just felt, not thought through.
@@NolanZewariligon I completely agree, but what you are referring to is an understanding of "conscious" that we could have a long philosophical discussion about and what I was referring to was a decisive act of editing and refinement while making art that involves choosing one image, sound, structure (and so on) over another image, sound, and structure...all done with a deliberate intent (even if it is just a matter of "taste" or "feeling.")
This does not mean that one cannot choose to accept or incorporate randomness, but it is often a conscious decision when one decides to do so and it is DEFINITELY a conscious decision when editing and refining one's work into a final product for presentation to others. At that point those unconsciously drawn lines made during a quick sketch are definitely refined into something purposeful. If I choose to leave one of those initial random lines it is because there is a reason for it. That isn't the same thing as the kind of randomness that the Dadaists often embraced (...though even they were purposeful and made decisions to express meaning through symbolism...often in straightforward, clunky ways).
Can Lynch's intentions always be understood by a viewer? Did Lynch understand the reason for all the decisions he made? Does everything in his work have a meaning expressed through symbolism? Maybe, maybe not. I was simply saying that there is no reason to reject the possibility of symbolism just because Lynch's style of imagery is similar to Surrealism's imagery. I also wanted to point out that Surrealists weren't all about just going with the flow and expressing abstract "feelings."
I am not saying that all the images in Lynch's films are symbolic in some basic coded way, I'm just saying that there is no reason to believe that NONE of them are...or even that most of them aren't!
Honestly, we just don't always know. That's an ambiguity he plays with.
One major reason I struggle with analysis of Lynch is moments in the show where Gordon will say something like “and 10 is the number of completion.” Now you’re in a wacky arbitrary place and it loses mesh with the other abstract concepts that seemed to fit together. There are so many points of inflection, as it were.