Twin Peaks Season 2 - a review... *MAY CONTAIN MINOR SPOILERS*

...

I love Twin Peaks Season 1 with a passion. For me it's the best thing ever to be commited to television. Sadly the same cannot be said for season 2 by a long shot. I can't believe how it changed so rapidly in it's second half from the 1st half and the 1st season, chiefly in tone and mood (and they're not good changes by any stretch), and the less I say about the story the better.

Twin Peaks Season 2 episode 1 is brilliant, and one of the best episodes of the series. It's creepy, ominous, blackly funny, disturbing and hypnotic, in fact almost a match to the brilliant pilot in terms of quality. As the investigations of both the teenagers and Cooper and the local law press on it maintains this quality; creepy, sad, funny, and always teetering on the edge of dread and chaos. New characters are introduced, like Harold Smith, an orchid-keeper who never leaves his house and owner of the secret diary of Laura Palmer. Lenny Von Dohen plays him beautifully, and the scenes he has with Donna are great to watch. A love triangle ensues when James starts falling for Maddy during a karaoke session at Donna's house. And it works, without ever straying from the story. The story continues seamlessly from the last series, with Audrey finding herself trapped at One Eyed Jacks and Cooper continuing his investigation through dreams and intuition. The next lot of episodes are for the most part brilliant, maintaining this tone; balancing on the edge of the frighteningly real and the hypnotically surreal, as Cooper has visions of a giant visiting him and giving him clues. And Albert Rosenflower returns, hilariously cynical as ever. But then the TV studio interfered. However, taking a step back for a second, I see no logic in revealing the killer halfway through the season in order to boost ratings, I mean it's basically taking away the centre of the series and leaving in it's stead a jumbled mess of loose narrative threads. And apparently the company made a bad decision, as the ratings plummeted after that, resulting in the series' cancellation many episodes later. So the television studio ABC made David Lynch reveal the killer in episode 16. And from thereon in it does seem quite rushed, although that episode is an absolute tour-de-force and one of the best of the series, and by far the most violent and frightening. The next few episodes are just as compelling as Cooper still tries to figure out who the killer is following another murder, but for the prominence of one highly irritating and unneccessary character; Dick Tremayne, a pretentious men's fashion expert who had a fling with secretary Lucy. This leads to an annoying conflict with the dumbstruck Andy which too often interrupts the more compelling events of the series.

But that dumb plot strand is just a taster of some of the more idiotic things that suddenly pop up in the second half of the series when it has no direction probably resulting from the absence of David Lynch. Indeed David Lynch does have a small but amusing secondary role through Season 2 as a deaf FBI chief who can't stop shouting. What's most striking about the second half of Season 2 is the complete change of tone. And it's far from positive. Season 1 and most of the first half of Season 2 was mysterious, darkly comic, artistic, melancholic, and deeply emotionally involving, and it all stemmed from the central brilliant setup of the murder mystery. It's narrative is perfect, the way the colourful characters' lives impact off each other is hugely entertaining and compelling and it flows seamlessly. And as I sat through the latter half of Season 2 I thought a lot about the first season, yearning to revisit it. The seed of the problem is of course the early revelation of the killer, and secondary to that, the absence of David Lynch and the hiring of too many writers to write in far too many quirky but far from charming characters, pointless tangents and stupid plots, such as Andy and Dick becoming amateur sleuths in order to find out if an orphan is the devil or not. That speaks for itself, I've got nothing more to say on that one. There's no serious heart to it, it's just comic relief for the sake of it. There are a couple of strands that are mildly amusing, such as ex-sleaze Benjamin Horne re-enacting the civil war. But that's all it is, it adds up to jack and shit. On a brief sidenote, I'm sick of people dissing Bobby. He's an excellent character in the series, going from unlikeable, to unintentionally hilarious, and he is very likeable; his relationship with Shelley touching and great fun to follow.


Basically Season 2 becomes something of a circus, with only the looming menace of Windom Earle and the Black Lodge partly redeeming it. For me personally, the biggest insult was pushing hippie shrink Dr. Jacoby to the back and having him assist in uninspired comic routines. He was one of my favourite characters from Season 1, and one of the most interesting and compelling. Russ Tamblyn was perfectly cast, and the scene in which he confronts Cooper about his love for Laura and his intense interest in the mystery. When he confesses in the cemetary at night that Laura gave his life purpose, it is deeply touching. Here was a character I really cared for, and he was ditched, even in the first half of Season 2 as he vacations to Hawaii, not to bash the first half of Season 2. I'm still angry at the way they wrapped up the mystery, after episode 16 it feels as if they were trying to get it over with as quickly as possible, with a funeral in which all the characters re-unite cheerfully and briefly. It's quite unsatisfying. And another of my favourite characters from Season 1; Audrey Horne, is pushed into an unconvincing romance with a young businessman character played woodenly by Billy Zane. There are various other pointless soap opera plot strands but I REALLY don't want to get into them. But the series does pick up with two plots that keep it above complete degeneration into a go-nowhere glossy soap; that of psychopathic ex-FBI agent Windom Earle and his capture of Leo and mysterious and deadly intentions, and that of Jocelyn Packard, who is revealed to be a tragic and deadly character, and whose fate causes her lover Harry to completely break down. His strong and touching relationship with Cooper is put to the test and Michael Ontkean's performance reaches a high point. Kenneth Walsh is hugely entertaining as Windom Earle, taking on disguises and manipulating people into his traps and I only wish there was more of him rather than the dead-end narrative strands I mentioned earlier. His demonic plotting with his newly found slave Leo was the only thing that kept me watching. In the last few episodes of the series Cooper falls in love with an ex-nun named Annie Blackburn, played nicely by Heather Graham in a very early role. Earle uses this to his advantage, and this leads to a confrontion in the final episode involving dead characters related to Laura Palmer in an extra-dimensional realm. The last episode, directed by David Lynch, while far from the best, is excellent (director, David Lynch), disturbing, surreal, frightening, and managing to tie into the original mystery of Laura Palmer. It's visually beautiful and more frightening than any horror film, but alas it could not save the dying series, watched by too few by then the series was cancelled, leaving lots of dark cliffhangers. But to me it doesn't matter. Even if the latter half of the second season wasn't very good at all, Twin Peaks will forever exist in my imagination, ever since I stayed up all night to watch the brilliant first season. Somehow I doubt I'll watch those last episodes any time soon. All I need is the first 18 or so episodes and that's my Twin Peaks...


Next stop, the movie; Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. I like the look of it, it looks closer in tone to Season 1 and it's about the last seven days of Laura Palmer, all about the original mystery I fell in love with. I've leant Season 1 out to a friend, but as soon as I get it back I'll delve right back into the great Pilot episode...or I could go outside for a couple of hours..........maybe not...

Coming soon...

...

An overview on the variable Twin Peaks season 2...

Hmmmmmm...

...I feel I maybe need to start reviewing some films I really strongly dislike. Maybe I should review POTC 3, I hate that film with a passion, maybe it'd be fun tearing it to pieces...

INTERVIEW with filmmaker Paul Bortowski...

...

Welsh filmmaker Paul Bortowski is an up-and-coming abstract filmmaker. His films are simple but stylish and effective; nightmares concerning madness, discovery and isolation...






Andrew says:
So, how did you get interested in cinema, and at what age?

Paul says:
when i was a child i watched many classic films with my father. i watched many during that time, i think the main film that got me into that world was sergio leone's a fistful of dollars, ever since then i have been obsessed with film. i cant be sure on an exact age, i would say that i was roughly 7 years old

Andrew says:
well that's the perfect age, and a fistful of dollars is no doubt the perfect film; youthful, adventurous, majestic and thrilling. So what was it that really struck you about that particular film?

Paul says:
i simply very much enjoyed it, it was unlike anything i would of expected to of seen, especially at that age. i also adored the musical score of the film, i found it fascinating. ever since i first watched the film i suddenly became a huge clint eastwood fan, he was my hero and still is to this day, after now seeing his entire filmography

Andrew says:
do you prefer eastwood as an actor or as a director?

Paul says:
a difficult question, i would say as an actor. i love his performances, his voice, his rough looks, his visual presence is legendary to me

Andrew says:
what made you think about filmmaking and the process and becoming a director?

Paul says:
when the invention of dvd was released, i naturally seemed to watch all the special features, i found the technical processes of film making fascinating, hence i very much enjoyed watching making of documentaries, the very detailed documentaries, such as the 3 and a half hour docu concerning the making of blade runner. i learnt a considerable amount of knowledge just by watching these...
i then simply decided that film is the ruote i want to head, i then applied for a college course concerning this field

Andrew says:
how did you find the college course?

Paul says:
it was very beneficial, it concerned multimedia as well as film/media production-studies, so i learnt alot of extra knowledge in different but not entirely different subjects. it also gave me the oppoertunity to start making my own short films, which was essential to my needs

Andrew says:
was visitor part 1 your first short film?

Paul says:
no, visitor part 1 was a film that i made when doing my the next year. my first genuine short film, as i made several short productions previously, was dica, and even though it wa smade a year before visitor part 1, i still believe that it is superior in techncailities
*my degree the next year

Andrew says:
are you very fussy or self critical over your films, do you ever look back on them and wish you had done something differently?

Paul says:
when in the production stage of my films, i wouldnt say im very fussy, certainly not as fussy as kubrick was, there was time constraints when filming my earlier films which forced me to accept the not so perfect, yet sufficient shots. with my later films i would say that i am alot more fussy now yes, i take much longer to get specific shots. and i do look back at my films and wish to make changes
primarily concernin my earlier films

Andrew says:
does it get to you a lot, or do you overcome it?
do you ever think of doing a director's cut/
?

Paul says:
i do overcome it yes, i simply have to, there's nothing i can do about it now, i say to myself. but this early stage really is about developing oneself, so adapting from these potential changes, you learn to prevent them from happening again in the future, its all a work in progress, a gradual progression which exists visually throughout this early string of work
i havent actually thought about doing director's cuts, certainly not now anyway, i have ambitions to move onto different types of films now, i need to move on.

Andrew says:
so you're basically about learning from your mistakes? great way of doing things. do you see filmmaking as your primary outlet in life?

Paul says:
absolutely, i simply must create films, i love it, if a future within this subject doesnt happen, i certainly wont be happy. film and music are my primary ambitions, film most definitely is the stronger of those

Andrew says:
now let's talk about the films themselves, what is the primary inspiration for the Visitor series and how was it originally conceived?

Paul says:
i always wanted to make dark and morbid films, it was what i really wanted to make these past few years, i simply love to embrace myself in these disturbing and dark atmospheres. originally i never intened to make a visitor trilogy, i only thought i would of made one. either way i came up with the idea for part 1 by discovering the location that the end film is set in, the location was so dark and
gritty, that i simply had to make something atmospherically horrid within it, i then set out to write a script. for the stage that i was in at the time, i am still pleased with it, for what the film is in its own right, again its a working progress. my main concern with the entire visitor trilogy is the desire to explore derelict larybrnths and the atmospheric energies within those on par with
an assessment on the psychological reprecussions that occurs alongside these terrible adventures that my characters confront within the locations

Andrew says:
well it is a wonderful and atmospheric location, an abandoned church isn't it? The more I think about the third film, the more I see it as a study of rationality coming into contact with irrationality, the visiting backpacker coming into contact with the demonic phantom played by yourself. It's very simple in concept and execution, but very effective and memorable. Is this how you see it?

Paul says:
the location in the first film is an underground quarry explosive storage station, obviously now abandoned, the location in part 2 is an old farm house on the side of a mountain and the location in part 3 is derelict victorian school. i dont see it exactly as you described above no, the rationality part is interesting, although its not what my intention was, despite how reasonable that is.....
the visitor trilogy actually looks at the end result of the characters mind at the end of each film, part 1 states the characters achievement of personal enlightenment, part 2 is that of personal self-destruction and part 3 is that of personal revelation. the story for part 3 is rather subtle and simple indeed, as well as the end result, it is executed in a realist manner, rather than some...
over the top expressionistic manner. the character finds what hes looking for, evidence of paranormal activites and his revealtion of this exists by the fact that he is being haunted and hunted by an entity within the location, that entity is the main character from the first two visitor films, that is primarily the only narrative connection between all visitor films

Andrew says:
what were your main influences for those films in terms of certain films or filmmakers?

Paul says:
part 1 was certainly influenced by david lynchs eraserhead, that film always stuck with me ever since i first saw it, his execution of the atmosphere within the film on par with its surrealistic qualities was really striking for me. i dont have any influences concerning part 2 and 3, i had my own vision really that was partially based on personal experiences, which i shall not utter here in detail
generally my influences would certainly be david lynch, andrei tarkovsky and the film alien by ridley scott

Andrew says:
of course, i was just thinking about alien with the mention of isolated and derelict locations. Do you think Alien is very close to the Visitor films thematically?
Paul says:
certainly, the isolated and claustraphobic elements connect here for sure. also the theme of being haunted and/or hunted within this enclosed setting by an unknown entity is also evident here
Andrew says:
What do you think of the way cinema is today and the direction in which it is going?
Paul says:
well im certainly not a fan of the majority that comes out of hollywood, there is nothing daring or different coming from this area, it's all the same essentially. of course these films are primary for escapist pure entertainment, where some of them are good i will admit, but generally there is nothing striking within them, nothing to think about. which is why i simply admire foreign and independa
film makers, this is the ruote i want to follow

Andrew says:
yes, and there are many independent filmmakers who have broken into Hollywood and made big-budget, but great films, like Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, the Coens. Do you one day hope to make a great film within the public consciousness?

Paul says:
well i wouldnt exactly call tarantino's films great, but thats just me. and yes i certainly do, i want to make some very daring films that will cause controversy simply because they will be expressing my not to popular views on the world, i really want to express these views, i feel that i need to, either way i will be in my independant films essentially, so all is good in that department
i have ambitions to make all sorts of films, i've passed on from the dark films (for now) i want to make a long string of films that is tied with versatility

Andrew says:
so what can we expect from you in the years to come?
or will we be surprised?

Paul says:
well i would like to make many realist dramas that contain tragedy and concern depressing and devesating issues within life, i am actually planning on starting these films later this year. with these dramas i would also like to focus on urban environments that the films subject matter will take place in, i want to focus on how filthy it is and gritty. as well as that i would like to make
several thrillers and many documentaries

Andrew says:
sounds quite similar to the work of Alan Clarke. Have you seen any of his films?

Paul says:
i have of course seen scum, which i thought was fantastic

Andrew says:
so are these going to be short films, or are you hoping to make a feature soon?

Paul says:
well the first couple of dramas i intend to make as shorts, after that however, i would like to make the majority of my films longer than 60 minutes

Andrew says:
sounds great, can't wait to see them. One last question before we wrap up, which of your films is your favourite and why?

Paul says:
visitor part 2 is my favourite, it focuses alot more on the mind, the setting is more enclosed and i simply adore my acting, far better than the ''acting'' in my other films, i put alot of energy into that performance, alot of heart and mind power and executing that at the same time as making the film was very exerting, and the results are find indeed. part 2 is definitely my favourite for
personal reasons of course, although part 3 would be my favourite on the technicalities deperatment, it is such an improvement on any objective level

Andrew says:
i was most affected by part 2 on a personal, but like you I do prefer the execution of part 3. well we'll have to finish up now, thanks for your time.







Here are links to the first parts of Paul's films, soon to hit festivals, the rest can be found in his profile or in the related videos section -

VISITOR PART 1 (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TT4wJJXx3s&feature=related

VISITOR PART 2 (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEipRUHTTgw&feature=related

VISITOR PART 3 (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbHaIfmKNyU&feature=related

Well...

...I'm pretty chuffed with my latest review, for now anyway, and it's good to finally update my very slow blog. I haven't been posting a lot due to a lack of confidence and drive to write. My lack of confidence is mainly due to that fact that I think some of my earlier posts suck a fuck, but I'm gonna press on anyway...

COMING UP

An interview with filmmaker Paul Bortowski once I figure out how to cope and paste from notepad to my blog (help would be greatly appreciated or I'll have to type it all up, if you have a solution, I will personally get in front of a webcam in tight-fitting panties and teabag you).

And hopefully another review soon.

AND

I almost forgot to mention that I have some little ambitions for this blog. I'm thinking of starting vlogging, like thespoonyexperiment, one of my favourite websites. But for now it's just a little ambition.

FILM REVIEW - La Regle de Jeu...

...

Jean Renoir's La Regle de Jeu ranks among my favourite classics, alongside Citizen Kane, Rio Bravo, and Renoir's war film La Grande Illusion. Like Citizen Kane, it's a critics' favourite that really is super-entertaining. I can't think of a single flaw with this film. The narrative flows beautifully, the performances are all fantastic and real, and Jean Renoir's direction balances comedy and tragedy, complexity and simplicity, chaos and order beautifully and effortlessly...

Very different in terms of story and character to La Grande Illusion but thematically quite similar, it's about the tragic contradictions and irrationality of human behaviour and the collapse and folly of the bourgeosie lifestyle. The story concerns a number of characters who meet up at a rich man's chateaux in the French countryside. It opens with the arrival of a hot shot pilot who has just crossed the Atlantic in record time. The press swamp him and congratulate him but he has a look of longing and disappointment on his face for the woman he loves has not arrived to greet him. She is "Madame," the wife of the rich man, very much the opposite of the pilot; gaudy and showy. The character central to the events and clashes of the film is Octave, played comically by Jean Renoir himself. He is loved by all and so his life is empty, he rushes between characters, helping everyone but ultimately failing to uphold any order. He is sad yet strong, a large, gruff bear with good intentions. He orchestrates a meeting between Madame and the pilot so that the pilot can reclaim her from the rich man. And from here we follow a host of other characters around the vast, seemingly infinite corridors of the chateaux, including a feisty but faithfuly female servant, an equally feisty poacher-turned-servant played by an actor from La Grande Illusion, can't remember his name, who has a fling with her, the ex-lover of the rich man, and various other characters. They are filmed with an almost constantly mobile camera, tracking them and making them seem like kids in a play-room, endearing yet pitiful, and somewhat mad. Another actor from La Grande Illusion, who also played the persecuted man who infiltrated bourgeois society in Bunuel's thematically similar L'Age D'Or, plays a fiery hunter and guard of the chateaux, who when faced with the prospect of his wife, the feisty servant, being stolen by the poacher, goes mad with anger, leading to his being thrown out of the chateaux and his emotional breakdown. There is conflict and confrontation in literally every frame of this film; it's a very noisy and busy film. People fight and take sides, double-cross each other, much like in a children's game, but have rules of etiquette they follow, as do children in a schoolyard. The people in this film are very real, and Renoir the brilliant writer holds deep empathy for every one of them, snapping between different points of view and filming each character internally. They chat and make small-talk, and put on facades, as is the tradition of their lifestyle, but so often find themselves lost, staring at their feet. They are broken, and disgraceful, and funny, jumbling around in a kind-of bourgeois apocalypse, with shows and ghostly ceremonies symbolising the death and emptiness of this lifestyle. But through the sacrifice of the pilot at the hands of the unknowing guard who thinks he's Octave who's running off with his wife, order is restored, and the bourgeious retreat back into their comforts, hiding from the oncoming conflict known as the Second World War. So the bourgeious values of pleasure and politeness result in the temporary downfall of a country at the hands of the Nazis. Indeed this film was banned by the Nazis, who saw it as "demoralising," as with La Grande Illusion. Both films are about humanity and the tragic contradictions and orders and barriers that plague it. In La Regle de Jeu there is a tour-de-force sequence, in which rabbits and chased out of woodland by men, only run into the line of fire of Madame and her guests. Madame deliberately misses. She is the object of desire for the pilot and her husband, and at one point of her best friend Octave. In the end one of the men is chased towards her by his desires and finds himself in the line of fire of the emotionally shattered guard. The slaughter of the rabbits is something of a precursor to this, a kind-of genocide. The rabbits run in the open and it is sheer luck that any of them survive. The characters in this film are rabbits, blinded by desire and fear, and shot down by life, victims of the bourgeious lifestyle...

The film has no heroes or villians, Renoir didn't think that way. Rather than attacking people, it attacks the circumstances of their lives; the bourgeious institution. It is a warning against the glutton and idleness of this lifestyle. It is passionate and energetic, and one of the best films ever made; dark yet light, walking a tightrope between madness and meaning; an absolute dream of a film.

As Octave would say, "there is one thing that is terrible, and that is everyone has his reasons." That is the tragic meaning at the heart of this film...