From uwvax!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tellab5!jfr Wed Feb 27 17:04:27 CST 1991 Article: 11580 of alt.tv.twin-peaks Path: uwvax!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tellab5!jfr From: jfr@tellabs.com (John Ryder) Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks Subject: Chicago Sun Times TP Article Message-ID: <5424@tellab5.tellabs.com> Date: 26 Feb 91 18:47:41 GMT Sender: news@Tellabs.COM Distribution: na Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL Lines: 105 I thought, that despite it's initially off-putting tone and title, that this article from the Television & Radio section of the Feb. 26 Chicago Sun Times might be of interest to you folks. I don't agree with everything in it, and it reads like an obituary, but I think it's worth a look: 'Twin Peaks Flops Towards Overdue Death' by Ginny Holbert You know it, I know it. I'll bet even Bob knows it. "Twin Peaks" peaked months ago. Ever since we learned who killed Laura Palmer, the series has been twisting and flopping like a doomed fish on deck. Now ABC has dumped it into "hiatus", which is the television equivalent of purgatory. Although six new episodes remain, the network will only say that they will air sometime this season. That means that last episode's contrived transformation of Josie Packard into a drawer knob could be our final image from what started as the freshest, funniest, scariest show on television. But the long, slow death of "Twin Peaks" began last fall, when ABC moved the series to Saturday night. That slot traditionally has been considered the black hole of broadcasting, which sucks everything into its infinite ratings vortex. "Twin Peaks", which appealed to young, trendy folks who don't stay home to watch television on Saturday night, had little chance of surviving. >From the very first, however, "Twin Peaks" was the little town that ratings forgot. Although the program was highly praised by critics, it was hardly watched by most of the American people. It was a phenomenon, but not a hit. In fact the week before the last episode, "Twin Peaks" ranked in 90th place for the season. In many ways, ABC's bold experiment by David Lynch and Mark Frost was a colossal failure. It choked on its own subplots, wallowed in its own jokes and came to mistake quirkiness for quality. But despite its lows, the majestic peaks of "Twin Peaks" dwarfed 90 per cent of anything else television has to offer. So before we forget, it's time to appreciate how wonderfully strange "Twin Peaks" really was. Actually, being weird was one of the show's greatest accomplishments. As a medium, television tends to flatten experience, making everything it touches comfortingly normal. So whether it's the Poppin' Fresh Doughboy singing rap music or Saddam Hussein chatting with American hostages, the leveling effect of television makes things seem ordinary, even when they are not. But on "Twin Peaks", nothing seemed ordinary, even when it was. The violence seemed as sick and awful as violence truly is, while ordinary things like whispering pines and cherry pie took on a surreal edge. For a visual medium, most television pays surprisingly little attention to the quality and composition of its images. But filmmaker Lynch approached his story with an artist's eye, rendering his twisted universe with saturated colors and crystalline pictures. The dancing dwarf, Laura Palmer's ashen face, the mega-kitsch interiors of the Great Northern Lodge - all were images that spoke as eloquently as any dialogue. "Twin Peaks" also offered a refreshing dose of ambiguity to a medium that usually leaves little to the imagination. Generally, television is strictly two-dimensional, relegating multiple layers of meaning to film and literature. For example, when was the last time you were truly puzzled by the behavior of anyone on "The Cosby Show" or felt the need to discuss the spiritual implications of "Uncle Buck"? But "Twin Peaks" and its provocative look at life's dark underside raised lots of juicy questions about the nature of good and evil. And if that suggests a streak of pretension, just remember that "Twin Peaks" answered those questions with "Bob", a wonderfully silly incarnation of the banality of evil. All along, "Twin Peaks" was richly ambiguous and challenging. Viewers worked hard to unravel its myriad mysteries and to keep up with the subplots that seemed to multiply like weeds. But in the end, it was all those plots that finally strangled "Twin Peaks". Casual viewers were hopelessly put off, while even regular viewers felt they could never catch up after missing just one episode. What had once been challenging became needlessly confusing, and viewers felt cheated by the never-ending stream of red herrings and loose ends. Although fans and critics blame ABC for the demise of "Twin Peaks", the show never should have been allowed to founder for as long as it did. It should have been conceived as a mini-series, not an open-ended soap opera. Whatever else it was, "Twin Peaks" was essentially a mystery. And in addition to a crime and a solution, a mystery absolutely requires a beginning, a middle and an end. Furthermore, the very nature of suspense means that it cannot be constantly sustained. Nor can weirdness last forever. When the strange is constantly present, it becomes familiar and loses its power. Loony, maddening "Twin Peaks" will be remembered as the show that made it hip to watch TV. It was truly television for those who don't watch television. Of course, without a place like "Twin Peaks" to visit, it's unlikely that those demographically desirable folks will be back for a while. John Ryder / Tellabs Inc.