#so it's quite unsatisfactory to a modern viewer wondering what they looked like

[britneyshakespeare]

I feel bad for Margaret of York that this portrait is always used to represent her

fuck ass proportions!!!

[rock-and-compass]

7.01 thoughts

I wrote this as I watched the episode: 

The whole “Author” angel still sucks – it is a shit premise to base the show on – it starts from a point of undercutting the authenticity of the characters they are asking us to invest in. Season one didn’t start like that; they were people first, characters second. They were people who just happened to live lives that were then turned into “fairy tales” for a non-magical world. But going with this multi-version path you make them “characters” and “creations” of an author first and people second. And for me, well I want to invest in a believable representation of a person and relationships. Plus, just because there are “multiple versions of the same story” doesn’t mean that these multiple versions should co-exist as real – this is hard to explain... yes each version of the story is a unique expression, but each versions of the story is based on an original story that came from somewhere. Like The Grimm Brothers didn’t go out and write their version of, say Cinderella (I have no idea if they wrote a version of Cinderella, I’m just using it for illustrative purpose) at the same time as it was emerging as a German folk story… no, the Brothers Grimm collected and published folk stories and fairy tales and popularised them which then led to others doing the same thing, right through to movies and modern adaptations … what Once Upon a Time wants us to believe is that all these versions live independent lives because an author created them, which contradicts their own mythology which is that the Author records not creates – didn’t Isaac get in trouble for interfering? So I guess my ultimate issue with the premise of Season 7 is that it gives the Author too much credit and it creates a block to believing in the characters as people – and isn’t the object of television drama to get us to invest in narratives creations as real and then buy the products we see advertised in the commercial breaks?  But OUAT has decided to start this race with a handicap in place…. And Henry constantly reminding us that these people are characters doesn’t help. 

So to the episode: 

Yeah, I’m so not here for Regina and Henry – such a surface-level, unsatisfactory relationship. Henry’s forgetfulness of his mother’s actions is one of the great whitewashes of this show – and the propensity to sweep anything unpleasant under the rug and never mention it again is the great undoing of this text. I believe this bad narrative habit is THE reason the show was so disappointing in season’s 4, 5 & 6.

Magic Beans – So rare once upon a time, now it seems they are a staple… (and didn’t they used to make great hulking holes in the ground, not neat fire portals?) And way to marginalise Emma much from the departure … oh yeah. That’s going to be a thing now.

Henry is a Swyft driver. Oooh, it’s just like the Uber ad we have here in Australia… (I liked the photography and soundtrack for this scene.)

Hello repeato storyline!

Lucy is . . . um . . . precocious and I don’t mean that in a good way. She sound like a child, over-acting lines written by forty+ year old writers. And, jesus kid, save something for the car-ride – ALL. THAT. INFORMATION. IN. ONE. HIT. Emma was at least able to hook into the need to get Henry home and he didn’t over-whelm her with details. But the need for narrative pace here is all-too-obvious. They are trying to salvage viewers. We don’t get the luxury of slow burn. They’ve put an uncomfortable, unnatural fire beneath this story.

SEPERATION WAS NEVER THE PROBLEM little girl. The original curse needed a Saviour. The original curse needed Emma Swan to break it. The Fairy-Tale refugees lived TOGETHER in ignorance for 28 years. I hate it when shows forget their own story.

Let me guess – Hyacinth is going to be her lucky flower. The writing is anvilicious as ever.  I’m sure there will be more added to this list – the “need to write your own story” seems to be a theme we’re going to get a lot of. 

HenryElla reactions: Not seeing much chemistry. But I’m willing to say it’s because I don’t want to buy what they’re selling. My choice. Henry being all upfront about the stories is annoying – like it perfectly demonstrates what I was talking about in my opening rant… it treats her like a character rather than a person… and it makes me uncomfortable. The flirting feels forced and unnatural – you can see the words from the script all too clearly. And they want us to believe that Cinders can ride a motorcycle after one verbal lesson. Impossible. And is the punch to the face supposed to put them in the class of Snowing and Captain Swan ?  It doesn’t. I love the Rock and the Compass moments for Snow and Emma (see my user name) – they were both up against it, in danger of being captured (by the blokes who would turn out to be their true loves no less) and they did what they needed to do to get the upper hand. Sorry Cinders  punching Henry to steal his bike is not in the same category. And the attempt to start this romance by borrowing from its better predecessors is  just waaaay to transparent.

Ugh. Roni.

She’s calling him “Kid” now?

Henry to Roni - “Imagine if I walked through that door and told you I was your son.”   Audience - Oh wait - you are her son!! 

What clumsy heavy-handed writing; adding that to my anvilicious list.

Tiana cooks. Nice.  (and the frogs legs line was very good too).

Why would Step mother have any rights to the custody of Lucy? And we get it – this woman is your step mother – how many times did they refer to that in one scene (Four. Four times in 40 seconds)

And why is Ms Belfry so attached to Lucy anyway? How was she ever given access to Cinderella’s child at all if she’s always been this evil biatch? The Devil Wear’s Prada riff was nothing but deliberate. Obviously so.

Here’s another of what I suspect will be a reoccurring themes – “Never rely on Magic. Magic isn’t power.” And “Fear lasts forever”.

Oh here we go – A wishing well in a dirty old vacant block. Lemme guess, as the proverbial sense of “hope” returns to Hyperion Heights this vacant lot will blossom and bloom with life and forge a sense of community … and then Ms Belfry will bulldoze it…

The Ball. The lucky flower is back already. Wasn’t expecting it quite so soon. (hmmm. What’s going to grow in that vacant lot I wonder?)

Drizella’s (is that her name?) dress is fantastic.

Did we even see the dagger in the motorbike stealing scene?

Oh yeah. Cinderella/Jacinda ‘doesn’t believe in signs’ (adding to the list…)

Alice is intriguing. And clearly doesn’t want Henry interrupting “the story”

Yes – please please please make Rumple/Weaver unequivocally villainous again.  I bet they won’t but whatever. I don’t expect him to last the season.

Aaargh – “not too happy with your story? What would you change?” says Henry…  seriously? Who wrote this dialogue? It’s about as sophisticated as a piece of string...

And why isn’t Jacinda telling whatever-her-name-Belfry to fuck the fuck off. As far as I know, a grandparent, let alone a step-grandparent has no legal rights whatsoever to a grandchild so writing that she does without giving some reason for it is just infuriating. And the blurred lines between everyone freely talking about fairy-tales and authors is so messy – how would Ms Belfry know about Henry or what Lucy has been talking to him about – he is an unsuccessful author of absolutely no note. And yet everyone (and by everyone I mean Belfry) seems to know exactly who he is and why he’s there.  Maybe they do; but it comes across as narrative convenience or confusion, like the writers have forgotten who knows what.

Sorry. Why would Roni get so emotional about Belfry telling Henry off? It just screams manufactured emotion with no substance.  

Stolen car? Or was it towed Henry? For parking too close to a mail box? Just pointing that out.

Hook the Cop! Who cares when others don’t . . .  I just hope they don’t woobify him too much. At all. looks like that’s what they are doing.

Ugh this is awful – “Wait. You’re Alice. Alice from Wonderland?” The use of Henry, the Author as all-knowing expert to point out what the audience already worked out is just horrible! My initial problem with the premise continues to get reinforced. Maybe this will dilute as the season progresses and such but at the moment the awful, awful writing is not helping the cause at all.

“When it’s not your story, bad things happen” – another theme? How many is that already? And again, it signposts issues with the premise. And by bad things, we’re talking curse aren’t we. So if Henry is in the wrong story and sets about the curse in motion … this is making my head hurt. It’s all so very snake-eating-itself.

Henry and his hero kink…. Was tiresome before and is just as tiresome now…

Why the fuck did Alice let him go???

oh god, would you look at that; Lucy is planting Hyacinth “seeds” - they should be bulbs. Good lord, if they wanted a shot of her scattering seeds, why not pick a flower with seeds? I guess the blue colour (and it’s connection to Cinderella) was more important than botanical correctness. Lol.

Lucy and Henry have a nice chemistry – easily the most believable of the new characters – but Lucy’s dialogue is not great – mini-adult rather than authentic kid. Henry, in season one was written well and then it seems like A&E forgot how to write good child and they haven’t got it back with Lucy. It doesn’t help that she is being asked to be the narrative conduit for all the information about the curse and current situation and is being given no luxury of time to let the story flow organically. It all feels very rushed and very forced and ungainly. 

Step Mother is Regina 2.0 then.  Setting up Cinders to take the rap for murder, just like Regina did to Snow, only Stepmum is much more to the point. Public murder no lest, by her own hand.  I’ll struggle with this a lot if we’re supposed to interpret everything Belfrey does as evil when she is a clone of Regina (even a supposedly redeemed Regina). No doubt they’ll give step mama a sad backstory and make us all feel sorry for her and then they’ll all make friends and skip around the hyacinth flowers in the community garden together... 

And could they hammer home the whole “stories beginning” any harder that they are. It’s like being tortured with the concept… which is so annoying because we get that this is a “new beginning” for this ridiculous show but the instance that Jacinda and Lucy have to ‘start their story’ is just dumb. The story is in progress -  they might be looking for a change but to keep repeating “the story” “the story” “the story” over and over is moronic. People don’t talk like that. A&E love their themes more than believable dialogue. 

I get that they want Hook to look in the book, but how the fuck did Drizella know about it being in Lucy’s back pack – how did anyone know that she had it??

And why does Lucy have to go to Ms Belfry again? This is just silly.  

Not to spoil a good scene where Hook is obviously seeing something of import on the page, but there are no other pictures in the book except the one he stops on…  and jesus Colin, try to muster a  little enthusiasm here…

Now they add a little conflict between Henry and Jacinda just to keep the pot bubbling- after all those attempted heart-eyes earlier we can’t give them too easy a path to true love now can we?

Portals are on timers now?

For real? We’re still using “Operation insert-word-here” to name the mission? It was puke worthy after season two. I thought Henry had grown up?

How does Ms Belfry have the power to promote a cop?

Hook trapped with Rumple as his policing partner…. Let’s just say I’m dubious, although it might give both these characters some scope for an interesting story. Depending on what Rumple’s game is.

So Roni doesn’t know how the legalities of sale of real-estate works (or the writer’s don’t), whatever. But the refusal to part with the bar sets up Roni to give a painfully manufactured ‘hope’ speech – inspired by Jacinda apparently – who ‘wouldn’t give in” to Ms Belfrey, even though Lucy still ended up in her grandmother’s custody and Jacinda did precious little to stop it. OUAT has had this habit for a while – making the character say things that are not backed up by the actual events. It’s just one of the reasons the writing on this show is so weak. It shows they have a lot of trouble of getting ideas and actualities to mesh and support each other.  

“today I watched you walk into my bar acting like you owned the place” Oh the irony! I’m laughing my guts up here – if you read anything I wrote for the previous seasons of OUAT you will know that this is a particular beef I had with Regina, particularly in season 6 - She was always barging into places like she owned the joint – she believed she did own the town - and in SB no one questioned her actions!  And now, here in HH it’s an affront to Regina/Roni that someone does the same to her? Now this would all be great if there was a remote chance that Regina would learn a lesson from it. If Ms Belfry’s character was a mirror for Regina to see her own reflection and actually address her past and undertake an authentic redemption – BUT IT WON’T - because the writers are incapable of complex storytelling and are too scared to tackle anything unpleasant.  I will never believe in Regina as the hero of the people. I will never believe Regina as a worthy leader.  The show didn’t do a remotely satisfying job in selling her “redemption” the first time around. Maybe Roni, the cursed persona is supposed to be different – maybe that IS the irony, that Roni gets affronted by things that were habitual to Regina, but I’m pretty sure (like 99%) that Roni is merely a way to write Regina as a white-washed hero and for her to assume the new position of a Snow-Emma-Granny hybrid. Nope. Still don’t like her. She feels like a fraud.  And never, ever give her dramatic voice-overs. They never work well. (And this one just goes on and on and on…) Could they be more obvious that they wanted Regina/Roni to check all the boxes, make sure she says all the catchphrases and touches on all the themes? it’s a crowning moment of anvilicious dialogue. 

Regina calling Ms Belfry a bully? That’s rich. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. And the sad part is I don’t think the writer’s even realise it!  I see what people who saw the screener meant when they said that the show now belongs to Regina – she has become the ‘voice’ of the narrative. It makes me very sad.

Sheesh, so they bust the myth of Henry’s dead family straight away? The break-neck speed of exposition is so inelegant.

Hook looking at the picture of Emma – about the most interesting 5 seconds of the entire episode.

The music, Roni’s heavy-handed voice-over, it all made me feel very uncomfortable. It was just a big hulking reminder of what is not there anymore. It all just felt so obvious that the show is trying too hard to recapture something that it has lost and I don’t think it will ever get back.  

[fyccb]

One For the Grandkids: TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN

"I should follow YOU?" - Miles Davis, to a fan expressing his wish that he go back to playing ballads At the end of Episode 16 of Showtime's TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN, we saw Audrey Horne (Sherilyn Fenn) briefly rescued from mid-life marriage to a man who was something less than the man to whom she once aspired by an invitation to dance. She then returned to her husband's side and a reality-shattering crash through that illusion into what appeared to be a confrontational collision with her own makeup mirror. I spent the past week wondering where this scene would take us. In a way, it took us nowhere, because we don't see Audrey again in the miniseries' last two episodes; then again, this scene tells us exactly where we are headed. The last two episodes, or hours (if we accept - as I think we should - David Lynch's description of this latest collaboration with Mark Frost as "an eighteen-hour film" rather than a miniseries) of this story suggest to me a one-hour or 90-minute story with a 15-16 hour prologue and a one-hour epilogue. It does not accommodate traditional narrative structure, and therefore is doomed to disappoint most audience expectations geared to that experience. Many times as the weekly chapters rolled out, I found myself responding to them not as narrative, not even as cinema, but as digital painting - making use of live actors selected much like emotional colors. As some others have observed, the quality of the digital effects suggested an unusual transparency that might look bad or cheap to those whose standard of measure was reality; but I always felt the point was never to suggest reality but different graphic ideas put into motion. A noble attempt to reclaim the viewer's right to suspend disbelief with their own senses, rather than have the technology rob them of that privilege. As the entire arc of the program is revealed, this level of artifice has a point to make. As with the original series finale, the general response I've been seeing has been disappointment, even anger, sometimes followed by a slowly blooming acceptance and enthusiasm. The disappointment, I believe, comes from a thwarted authorial impulse: it didn't go where we wanted it to go. But as characters in the story have been saying, "The past dictates the future." Therefore, any attempt to return to the past is a sentimental urge, a romanticism doomed to failure or, if indeed such contact is made, we run the risk of monkeying with our present vantage point in the future. Which is exactly the trajectory of the final chapter. In the last moments, when Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) asks "What year is this?" I don't think he's asking which year he's inhabiting. Rather, he's questioning our expectations of the narrative, our demands for clarity and a happy ending - even a satisfying reunion. Why did we want to go back to a murder scene? What did we want to undo? Or do? Were these characters not supposed to change - though we, their creator and television itself has? And finally, Cooper is also asking the wrong question, which points to a suggestion of his condemnation to another long detour through mystic circles - his penance for his ego in assuming superhuman responsibilities and a god-like role in setting everything right. When Cooper and Diane (Laura Dern) risk "changing everything" by riding the electrical coordinates to new identities, they soon lose each other and Dale finds himself alone in the American west, in the city of Odessa. It's not only the name of a Ukrainian city, but the feminine form of Odysseus or Ulysses, the hero of Homer's THE ODYSSEY, and finally a Greek word meaning "full of wrath." (The ODYSSEY connection to Cooper is quite interesting, particularly if we consider the interpretation that it took Odysseus so many years of wandering to return home because he didn't want to go home.) The Cooper whom we see cruising the streets of this melting pot American city is neither the all-good Cooper of the original series, nor the Bad Cooper, whose negative energies have been conquered by this point, or at least redistributed. As earlier events have shown us, Cooper's efforts came very close to saving Laura retroactively - indeed, he does seem to prevent her murder, at least on one plane of existence - but in doing so, he interfered with her own karmic destiny and sent that compulsory drama elsewhere to find its fulfillment. But he has not yet learned this lesson, and when he sees the fateful name Judy on a restaurant sign in Odessa, he follows the sign to a breakfast interrupted by the modern-day equivalent of an Old West shootout, as he butts in to save a stranger's honor. The melting pot signs (Odessa, Maersk, etc), the open carry laws, people living in accordance with romantic ideas of freedom in a conspicuously unfree word...  Lynch's purpose here is plain - this is the America we now inhabit, viewed through a pair of THEY LIVE eyeglasses, as it were. Cooper continues to take lawful responsibility for Laura Palmer's metaphysical fate by tracing Judy to her lookalike counterpart - an apparent kook and murderess whose name is not Judy but rather Carrie Page (Sheryl Lee) - and hoping to discharge the evil energies riding her existence by introducing her to her mother (Grace Zabriskie), who is dealing with devils of her own. But it's no longer her house... for the rather obvious reason that "You can't go home anymore." What Cooper may suddenly be inhabiting outside the Palmer house is not a different year, but a different tense - namely, reality. (This reading of the ending would appear to be supported by the casting of Mary Reber, the real-life owner of the Palmer House property, as its present owner Alice Tremond.) In short, David Lynch and Mark Frost have addressed themselves to the fact that art is a thing of process and progress that does not move in reverse; only the longing of the human heart does that. In so doing, it may well motivate the creation of art, but such art is usually wrenching in its torment, bringing us to terms with more innocent times that were never really so innocent, the nostalgic songs that closer scrutiny reveal to come from places of real pain, the high school sweetheart who got away and fired a bullet through the brain of the fellow lucky enough to catch her. Because what such investigations usually signify is that the present, our present, is in some way unsatisfactory - but if we dare to move back, we risk changing or losing connection with where we were. The original TWIN PEAKS series still exists, and that experience can be repeated to the heart's content, leaving THE RETURN to warn us of the myriad dangers awaiting anyone careless enough to rifle backwards through the spent pages of life. (c) 2017 by Tim Lucas. All rights reserved.  

My favorite Lynch critic, Tim Lucas of the recently late and very lamented Video Watchdog magazine, sums it up.  If this interests you at all, please check out their website here.  Lucas literally wrote the book on Mario Bava, and has been writing about Lynch for at least thirty years.  Would have posted this as a link if I could have figured out how.