You ought to get yourself...

POSTED BY: Gixxer
UPDATED: Friday, March 24, 2006 02:11
VIEWED: 5330
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

ZOID

Thursday, March 23, 2006 8:42 AM

Twin Peaks the Firefly of its day? Hmmm...

David Lynch is a hit-or-miss kind of artist. I found "Eraserhead" (1977) very dark and disturbing (that thing with the wormbaby: creepy); but it put Lynch on my radar. He followed up with the multi-nominated "Elephant Man" (1980). Again, disturbing and yet riveting.

Then he wrecked "Dune" (1984). Kyle MacLachlan (later of "Twin Peaks") aided and abetted in this embezzlement of Herbert fans.

I watched as much of Twin Peaks (1990) as I could stomach, but generally found it inane. My one favorite recurring character on the show was 'The Man From Another Place' portrayed by Michael J. Anderson (who some might remember as Samson of the HBO series, "Carnivàle" (2003)). But that was mostly due to 'trick' cinematography: Lynch filmed Anderson moving backwards and then reversed the film to give the impression of forward motion.

It was an intriguing effect, but not novel. The first time I had seen it was in "Top Secret!" (1984), starring Val Kilmer in a send-up of Elvis Presley movies. In that flick, Peter Cushing (a.k.a. 'Grand Moff Tarkin') gets the 'backward' treatment and it's so seamlessly done that many viewers didn't even snap to it until Cushing apparently inhales a cloud of dust onto an old book.

On a side note, this is also the trick that makes Samara so unsettling in "The Ring" (2002). The actress is filmed walking backward, then the film is reversed to make it appear as though she is moving forward, yet in an unnervingly disjointed fashion that is creepily inhuman.

F.F. Coppola (Nicholas Cage's uncle and benefactor) also used the effect extensively and to great effect in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992).

So, Twin Peaks = Firefly? I think not. Twin Peaks was the fad of its day. It was the Desperate Housewives or Lost of its day. People gossipped about it at the water cooler. Nobody even got the chance to see Firefly (thanks fer nothin', F*x), much less gush over it with perfect strangers in the produce aisle of the Piggly Wiggly.

Finally, Firefly was unique for its realism, while Twin Peaks was noted for its surrealism. If anything, the shows are the antithesis of one another, on every level you'd care to examine...

Critically,

zoid

P.S.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a great film, if for no other reason than that it gets 'La Bellucci' (Monica) spectacularly nude. That woman is living proof that there is a God, and that He loves us very much... For those who prefer the male form, Keanu Reeves, shirtless. Call it a 'date flick'. And, of course, it's the role of Gary Oldman's career thus far. They really got Vlad right in this one. Rent it, if you must; but you'll wind up buying it afterward, so why not just cut to the chase? That's my "You ought to get yourself..." recommendation.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

GIXXER

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:03 AM

No argument with the hit-or-missness, but I think he was right on the money with Twin Peaks. If only for having gags in it for once. Makes all the difference.

I can't agree that it was anything like Lost or Desperate Housewives. They try to be quirky / weird, but it just comes off as a half-assed "look how clever / daring we are". Like Joss's stuff, Twin Peaks succeeded because it did the weirdness for real, and wasn't all that concerned about spelling it out. If you didn't get it, you probably would some day. Anyway, a little disorientation never hurt anyone.

Dune. 6-lane pile up of a car crash. I've got it, but lack the patience to sit all the way through. But to be fair, Lynch isn't precious about it.

"I started selling out on Dune," {Lynch recalls.} "Looking back, it's no one's fault but my own. I probably shouldn't have done that picture, but I saw tons and tons of possibilities for things I loved, and this was the structure to do them in. there was so much room to create a world. But I got strong indications from Dino De Laurentiis of what kind of film they expected, and I knew I didn't have final cut. And little by little - and this is the danger, because it doesn't happen in chunks, it happens in the tiniest little shavings, little sandings - little by little every decision was always made with them in mind and their sort of film. Things I felt I could get away with within their framework. So it was destined to be a failure, to me."

ZOID

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:25 AM

Gixxer:

Yeah, I don't mean it to sound like I'm a Lynch hater. As I said, I admired his work prior to Dune, and I admired "Lost Highway", if for no other reason than Robert 'I Offed My Wife' Blake's character in the flick.

"Mulholland Drive" and "Blue Velvet"? Not so much. The former was without flavor, the latter a little too scatty, and I generally enjoy Dennis Hopper's work. Blue Velvet and Waterworld are the two exceptions to this rule. I thoroughly enjoyed his supporting role in "True Romance" (1993). The bit where he explains to Mafioso Christopher Walken how Sicilians are dark-complected because African Moors conquered the island and interbred with Sicilian women... Priceless. As a means of escaping certain grisly torture, that was a stroke of screenplay genius.

v/r,
-zed

EDIT: To respond to your edited comments, I turned 32 in 1990, the first year Twin Peaks aired. Although it was on the tip of everyone's tongue in those days -- "What's gonna happen next?" -- "Who do you think killed Laura Palmer?" -- in much the same way as Desperate Housewives or Lost is today (that was the only parallel I was drawing), I was incredibly non-plussed by Twin Peaks.

My taste merely differs from yours. I thought somebody might be interested in an opposing viewpoint; it is not my intention to negate your opinion. Not everyone will enjoy Twin Peaks, because it's so odd. Many will enjoy Twin Peaks, for that exact same reason. But in the final analysis -- real vs. surreal, outrageous public popularity vs. obscurity and ignominious public death -- Firefly and Twin Peaks are photograhic negatives of one another, in every detail. Joss Whedon excels in making his characters, stories and dialogue unfathomably real; David Lynch is the master of everything bizarre. Polar opposites. Da Vinci juxtaposed with Dali.

GIXXER

Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:43 AM

Hey, opinions are perfectly OK.

All I'm interested in is raising the profile. I've no idea why I've suddenly got the bug about this, but I'll get over it soon.

And if I rack up any conversions, that'll be a bonus.

I've never managed to properly catch Northern Exposure, but it does appeal to me.

And Gary Oldman does rule. Can chew the scenery with the best, but has the taste to knock it off when necessary. His quietest role must have been Gordon in Batman begins, and it was still great.

ZOID

Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:20 AM

Gixxer wrote, in part:

Quote:
...All I'm interested in is raising the profile. I've no idea why I've suddenly got the bug about this, but I'll get over it soon.

And if I rack up any conversions, that'll be a bonus...

Well, tell it, preacher! I would certainly never say "Don't watch Twin Peaks". Lynch is a craftsman. Of the surrealist school, but an artist nonetheless. Compared to the majority of the pap that airs on television (or, hell, even in the movie theatres), his work does have one thing going for it that everybody can appreciate: Integrity.

Even if you don't like it, you'll recognize the virtuousity of the work; you'll know you've witnessed an exercise in Art. That's true.

v/r,
-zed

AUSSAY

Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:48 AM

... Futurama series 1 - 4

An episode of Futurama and Firefly cures what ails ya!

"Shake your head boy, your eyes are stuck"

www.fireflyfans.net
http://www.browncoatsriseagain.com

DAYVE

Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Of the surrealist school

had to throw this out there.....

question: how many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb ?

answer: fish

DONCOAT

Friday, March 24, 2006 1:07 AM

... Wonderfalls.

Another series from Tim Minear that was treated, if anything, even worse by Fox than Firefly was.

Great ensemble cast, quirky characters, sharp and witty writing, cool setting, and perhaps the niftiest premise for a TV show since, well, Firefly. And for a long time before that, Firefly aside.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

CYBERSNARK

Friday, March 24, 2006 2:11 AM

...NCIS

One of the only three "police procedurals" I have ever been able to watch and care about (the others FYI were The Inside, by our very own Tim Minear, and Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex).

It may not be particularly realistic in the forensics department, but (as with The Inside), it's the characters that sell the show. I feel I know these people. Equal parts serious, fun, witty, outright laugh-out-loud funny, and jaw-droppingly shocking.

Last season's finale rivals the Big Damn Spike in Serenity for ripping out your heart and making you choke on it.

Hell, swap the NCIS offices for a spaceship, and I can see Gibbs, DiNozzo, Zeva, Abby, McGee, Ducky, and even Palmer as denizens of the 'verse. Loyal, hard-working Alliance investigative officers, perhaps, but they'd fit in the 'verse nonetheless.

Great, now I'm stuck on the thought of Gibbs' team being sent after a certain pair of fugitives.

Then Gibbs & Mal end up getting along like fellow veterans. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

PREV PAGE 1 2