Creative Expression & the Truth
After 27 years, Twin Peaks has officially returned to television. Much buzz and hype has been generated by the show’s remarkable revival. Questions have been raised as to what form it will take and how successful it will be in bringing an old story to a new audience. So, with two episodes in the bag (four if you count the ones available via Showtime Anywhere), what’s the verdict from a fan of the cult classic like myself?
It’s a mixed bag. Much of my expectations proved to be accurate. Some of what I saw I liked. Other aspects weren’t so appealing. I have not watched Episodes 3 and 4 (and won’t until Sunday, probably) so I will refrain from talking about them. This post will contain a few minor spoilers for the premiere, so cut out now if that concerns you.
What is Wonderful:
Classic characters like Andy, Lucy, Deputy Hawk, the Log Lady, and Benjamin Horne retain much of their charm.
Despite the digital (rather than film) production, most of the cinematography works extremely well.
The opening picking up with Laura Palmer’s “25 Years Later” speech in the Red Room is picture perfect. There was no better way to start the show again.
Many of the new mysteries are intriguing and even a little scary.
Where the music does flare up, it’s soothing to hear the old themes.
What is Strange (and/or Entertaining):
Evil Cooper is both fun and uncomfortable to watch. If someone said he’d stepped out of No Country for Old Men, I’d believe them. Kyle MacLachlan should definitely be up for awards if this performance is anything to go by.
It feels disjointed. Lynch has said this is more like an 18-hour movie and it definitely feels like it was edited in such a manner.
I like the Buckhorn, South Dakota storyline and the thing/demon in the box in New York plotlines even if they don’t quite gel yet.
What is Neither Wonderful or (Entertainingly) Strange:
The “Arm” appearing as a badly made CGI brain stem. No, Lynch, this doesn’t work. Just no.
As expected, lack of censorship leads to unnecessary nudity and sexually-charged foul language. This offends me as both a Christian and a writer. You’re telling me that the couple needed to have intercourse at the start before they were killed? A line that Evil Cooper utters (which I won’t repeat) near the end of Episode 2 was absolutely necessary?
The absence of the soap opera/goofier elements (so far) renders the show as both darker and a little dull. But maybe that will change (I hear good things about Episode 4).
The sheer silence consuming even scenes set in Twin Peaks with familiar characters is just plain wrong. Where’s the finger-snapping jazz?
All told, I’m not unhappy with what’s been presented. I think it could be more tightly edited and less vulgar (compared to other Showtime/HBO shows it’s not that bad, though), but I’m intrigued as to how the story will unfold. What role will the classic characters play? Can Cooper actually escape the Black Lodge/Red Room before the season ends? How much will be left unsaid? How’s Annie?!
But I think I’ve reached the end of what I can say about last night’s program without spoiling too much, so I’ll move onto the secondary purpose of this post.
What’s the real reason behind the “censorship” rationale used to justify what I would call gratuitous exploitation? Artists and makers will likely cite creative expression as their reasoning, but I’d argue it goes deeper than that. It’s the sinful nature at work.
Oh, there absolutely are stories that can’t truly be told without at least some of the grotesque. But more often, the artistic excuse is a means to justify the use of titillation in their works. Think about every R-rated sex scene you’ve seen in a film or television. Wouldn’t it actually be better if that remained as something off-screen and alluded to? What benefit is it to see bare behind in the telling of a story? Do you need to see genitals up close to get the picture of relationships between characters?
I’d argue that there’s never ever been a (good, non-pornographic) film, television show, or video game in which it has been necessary to see the nude form engaged in sexual activity. But people in charge of such properties have the tendency to go for either shock value or simple lustful expression. Why? It’s because they want to satisfy their need to do that which is sinful. And then, by vicarious experience, the audience fulfills its evil need as well.
One could even say that HBO and Showtime and other networks which emphasize their lack of censorship exist only as a gateway to indulgence in sin. Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy shows like Game of Thrones, which often contains excessive nudity and sex and a fair amount of gore. But I’ve never been one to subscribe to the idea that moderate levels of censorship stifle creativity.
If anything, limits force a writer/director/developer to be more creative with their art. Compare a joke told in an early 90’s comedy to a modern one. Which is funnier: the one that uses innuendo and dances around the subject or the one that is blatant and uses the coarsest language possible? Every time I hear a modern film or television show go right to the most direct, most offensive answer in their writing, I cringe. Because I know it can always be done cleaner and better.
We live in a world where, increasingly, the race to the finish line seems to be in making as much of an uproar as possible. You can see it not only in creative works but also in politics and other real-life interactions. Conversations that would’ve been hushed in the past become big, boisterous, and obnoxious.
At the same time, this toxicity is juxtaposed by a strange one-sided political correctness. Now, one can discuss whatever crass subject comes to mind, but God help you if you dare make a suggestion about the morality of it. That “triggers” people and sends them to their “safe spaces” and other such nonsense. Rational discourse dies in the face of the need to satisfy desires of the flesh and ailments of the mind.
But you know what’s beautiful (or, you might say, wonderful and strange) in spite of all this? The Truth never changes. People will attempt to mold it into whatever they please and yet it is apparent to me, to us, to the Christian, that as much as the world decays and reveals itself, the Light is always there.
“All have turned away; all alike have become corrupt.” (Psalm 14:3)
“But if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
I hope you’ve enjoyed this week’s entry and I think I’ll leave you with this Twin Peaks inspired question (and answer):
“Is [sin] future or is [sin] past?”
It is both. It persists. But it has been defeated by Jesus Christ. He is Risen. He is Lord. He is your Creator and Savior. All glory be to Him.
