Twin Peaks Actually Explained: Responding to the Critics 

Laura's last scream at the end of the S3 terrifies my soul

I think the core 'Lynchian' experience is when you kind of understand what's going on, and at the same time you don't. Mystery and explanation at the same time, intertwined.

"Things exist." --David Lynch

your david lynch voice has become a kermit the frog voice in my mind now

i could watch another 20 hours of these vids on twin peaks. I watched the 4 hour one like 3 times just to absorb it all.

Regarding the whole Frost/Lynch thing, I've always felt like Frost was the guy coming up with an 'in universe' mythology to support the meta stuff that Lynch wanted to be doing in terms of symbology and abstractions.

David Lynch might very well be unaware of his own motivation for creating Twin Peaks.

id appreciate having INLAND EMPIRE explicated.

Two things: 1- I think the “What time is it?” line from The Return finally is also a reference to the “What time is it?” line from FWWM where one agent tricks the other into spilling coffee into his lap. We as the audience are being jolted awake from the dream. 2- I think Dougies journey of luck is supposed to show us how boring the manufactured good fortune of TV can be if not balanced w tension. That wishing everything would just fall into place for our characters robs the story of substance.

Lynch truly is the Wizard of Oz here. The answers are actually simple, but it's the bells and whistles concealing them that make it all interesting. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

For me, the best part about the original Explained video was that it attempted to actually find some higher meaning from the show beyond just unravelling the events of the show. Most of the videos here on RU-vid about Twin Peaks, while they may dive into the metafiction on occasion, stick to attempting to unravel the actual mysteries of the show. Making sense of the strangeness with the timeline, figuring out who Judy is, getting the lodges in order. On RU-vid at least this really is the pinnacle of a dive into the metafictional aspects of the show, regardless of whether or not you believe the interpretation is valid. Personally, I can concur with the sentiment that certain associations made within the first video seem to be stretched, but on the other hand so much of it seems to slot right into place. I don't think it's perfect, but the video really is the perfect springboard into trying to understand the show for yourself on a symbolic level, organizing metafictional associations in a way that's on par with university level symbolic analysis, boiled down for us mortals.

ffs, ive watched the show soo many times and lauras scream still scares the sh*t out of me

I’ve watched the videos a few times but I don’t remember if anything was said about the Bookhouse boys. In the fourth episode of the first season, Big Ed, Harry, Hawk, James meet In a secret place where coffee is free and just before this event, Harry says that Twin Peaks has always been a different place... That people always fought against evil, that there is something evil in the woods ... It is strange that this was never mentioned in the series or in the film again.

I think the only thing I'm rejecting about these videos is the notion that the meta commentary on the state television (which i've always acknowledged, even before the Return) is the main driving force for Lynch's Twin Peaks and that any other intended meaning is secondary or an offshoot of that. Not that there's much value in arbitrarily designating weight classes to each interpretation, but your guess is as good as mine when it comes to distilling the single most important theme Lynch had in his head when deciding work on Twin Peaks. Who knows really. But I don't doubt this interpretation. My problem with the initial 4 hour video was with the presentation. "It's over guys. TWIN PEAKS HAS BEEN SOLVED! It's all meta commentary on television duuude. Everything else is secondary to this. Lynch certified." This follow up video certainly helps dampen the attitude that I perceived as being a bit overly confident for a theory that, while true, could have been secondary itself.

"When you develop ideas wordlessly in your head, it's hard to explain them in a way that retains their tone. When you explain them in the most straightforward way, they can come off... not so well, or at least, not the same. " This comment about your work is not mine but I agree 100%

I feel like the "just feel" approach is good for the first run through of any David Lynch film. This should be followed by mulling it over and rewatching before coming to a conclusion.

The 4 hour explainer was FANTASTIC!

I feel like Dougie at the slots seeing another TP video from Twin Perfect after thinking the original 4.5 hour video was the only one. *_Helloooooo!!~_*

Im a painter and I can completely relate to the pain it causes me to over explain my work. If it could have been an essay, it would be already. The thoughts feelings the audience experiences viewing the work is so much more nuanced and powerful. And you can *still* interpret the core ideas of the images but its never the whole picture and by itself cheapens the work.

I’m old enough to remembering sitting down in the floor at my dad’s house to watch twin peaks. I really have enjoyed your thoughts on this show, and, they have helped me to appreciate the 3rd season more. I think I may be in that minority, as the 3rd season felt, well, wrong to me. I never could explain it, but it just didn’t feel right. I think I may have subconsciously picked up on some of this because I never really saw, and maybe it was my age being 12 in 1990, the supernatural aspects as being actual otherworldly supernatural. To me they were unexplainable, not like a spirit in the closet, but just some kind of mystery that felt right, but always just out of grasp of an explanation. Being at the age I was, it just made everything in the show have this air of wonder about it. To my young mind, obviously not having some intellectual understanding of the surreal, so much of the show just felt out of my ability to understand; but not in an uncomfortable way; it just felt like my life at the time; that young so many things were there, I just didn’t understand them, but they were no less enjoyable for it. I could just accept that I couldn’t explain. I guess in the end my mind hadn’t yet reached that point of being over complicated and analytical and I could just accept the simple as it was. I didn’t need an explanation, I just enjoyed the show for what my limited reason could understand. All these years later, listening to your interpretation has brought some of that back to me, and given me a chance to view everything I knew in a whole new light. My only disagreement with you, concerning the original video, is that watching it would take the mystery away, simplifying everything to a conclusion; in point of fact, it’s given me more mystery in my experience of twin peaks; forcing me to re-examine my own conclusions of the show, which I must say, I was blessed that it was at a time in my life when I could accept the strange with wonder and just enjoy twin peaks for what it was to me; just a good show. Thank you for helping me get some of that mystery back, and allowing me to re-examine my own ideas.

Would you ever do a video on other Lynch projects?

16:20 your finger wagging indicates you've been watching too many Lynch interviews latley lol

Marcel Duchamp said the artist is a mediumistic being and that the posterity (audience) decides its meaning or value. Lynch may have intended something but that doesnt mean its correct or the intention is what happens.

I definitely thought some of what you said was a stretch, but I disagree with your analysis of why people thought that. I thought your general analysis is probably right, but I think from that general idea you read things into some of the smaller details that weren't necessarily there

“Just because it’s imaginary, doesn’t mean it’s not real”

Rosseter, first off--thanks for making these videos; they are extremely thought-provoking and the arguments are on-the-whole well-reasoned, well-supported, and convincing--there were dozens of ideas you shared that were "a-ha" moments for me while watching. That said, part of putting academic-style material into the world is that there will be responses from the audience--it's why there are peer-reviewed scientific journals, for example. This process of response, questioning, and engagement is called critique, not criticism--the need to respond to "the critics" and belabor the point that "you're right" is not a great look and doesn't exactly elevate your initial piece. It's clear you've put a lot of time, attachment, passion, and effort into making the material rewarding, but getting defensive when people disagree or challenge points you've made isn't productive. You mention in this video that people found some of your ideas "a stretch," and I agree--conclusions like the woodsman/electrician "planting" electric poles because he has a stick, or the spiraling section about Lynch's son with the mask, are simply not as well-supported as some of your other arguments--and THAT'S OK! Not every assertion is going to have an ironclad explanation, and you may be right, or you may be wrong, but the process of making the assertion, if it's got at least some support, is what has made reading about Twin Peaks theories interesting for going on 30 years. It's OK for people to disagree or challenge an idea and it doesn't necessarily diminish its value if it does have basis in evidence. One nuance I think you miss when stressing your "correct" interpretation and the somewhat paradoxical validity of other interpretations is that great art is not only born from its creator's original idea, but if it's actually good, it'll be DESIGNED in such a way that it represents not only that idea, but also much more--Lynch is clearly a master of this! By beating the dead (white?) horse that there's a single correct interpretation, you risk turning a blind eye to the richness of imagery, themes, and unique expressive elements that the medium of film/TV offer to convey open-ended meaning beyond and IN ADDITION TO the core idea. It's not that your explanation isn't right, it's just that art doesn't end there! It reminds me of the classic Marxist literary interpretation that every work of fiction is ultimately about class struggle--yes, you can validly interpret almost any work of fiction through that lens, but does that mean that's ALL THERE IS to it, or there aren't innumerable other layers of valid meaning? Of course not, and by focusing solely on one pet interpretation, you stand to shut out other things that might simultaneously be there. I'm not of the camp that says it can't be explained (like I said, I buy into most of your interpretation), but I do believe that the series is also meant to intellectually baffle but simultaneously evoke a strong emotional response, and that the path to interpreting its truth lies in the convergence of those emotional and intellectual clues. This idea and your ideas aren't mutually exclusive. So, I welcome your interpretation as one facet of understanding this art, alongside many more! I'm looking forward to watching the "EVEN MORE Evidence" video and urge you to focus on that kind of content--the actual ideas and interpretations, which are what's actually interesting, rather than focusing on responding to people who disagree or challenge points you've made. Imagine if David Lynch spent his time not creating more art, but going online and correcting every person who shared an interpretation of his works. Yikes! Respect to you for your gargantuan contributions!

You don't understand David Lynch? Andrej Tarkovski: Hold my vodka.

"But your opinion is wrong, and I can prove it" - Twin Peaks 2013

As from The Wizard of Oz: it's not about the destination, it's about the journey. "Focus on the donut, not the donut hole" - Lynch Influence isn't always intention, & intention can be influenced by execution.

Let me just say that not only have you convinced me, you've also helped me enjoy Lynch's movies better in general. Mullholland Drive was always my favorite movie, but I used to just think of it as surrealism. Learning that Mr. Lynch actually intents his movies to have a meaning as well as a commentary on art, and then re-watching Mullholland Drive for a sixth time, suddenly it made perfect sense. And it was an amazing moment to explain exactly just what the hell happened to my parents. So hat's off to you, Twin Perfect. Now I challenge you to explain Inland Empire, because I can't.

People are getting it wrong. Art should always have many interpretations. Just because this is the central idea behind TP, doesn't mean that other themes like abuse, dreams, alternate realities and such are less important. And also, it doesn't mean that the in-world story is unimportant. A piece of art such as TP has a lot of layers and can work in many different ways.

Same issue I have with postmodernism or the “all interpretations are valid” philosophy bit of it - yes there are nearly infinite ways to describe and interpret and deconstruct things. No, they are not all valid. Some are more valid than others, and some of the more valid ones are more practical and “real”. Twin Peaks is explicitly not about blue cows. It is about Laura Palmer, but that isn’t an entire interpretation. It is about the balance of good and evil - now we’re getting somewhere. It’s about the balance of good and evil in TV and media - still not an *entire* interpretation, but beats the hell out of some blue cow theory.

Just wanted to say that I really love these videos and your entire theory. It gave me an enhanced affection for the series and Lynch.

If there is one piece of criticism you should ignore, it's people hating on your Lynch impressions.

I'm not trying to diminish the incredible amount of work you've put into these videos but I must say I have two main issues overall. 1. The tone. I read a wonderful piece in Sight and Sound one time when it was discussing the end of The Sopranos and the general gist of it was "ambiguity" is not a riddle. If something is ambiguous it's not saying there is an answer, just that the subject is open to many different theories and interpretations. If your video was like "my take" or "here's a theory" but your general lecturing tone is a bit much. You've done the homework but it's like someone could sit down and cross reference every single story or anecdote from Bob Dylan's life and his music but you can't explain what "Visions Of Johanna" means to me or anyone else. There's also an episode of Star Trek Voyager where Seven of Nine becomes obsessed with information and the moral of the story is with so much data, one could construct so many different scenarios which she does in the episode. 2. You pick what Lynch quotes to dismiss and which to hold as gospel so rigidly to support your points. I've been following Lynch for a long time and his interviews often contradict themselves. If something doesn't fit your theory, you seem to say that paricular quote isn't relevant and then you cling to something he said one time as an anchor for a whole segment of your theory. I respect the work you did and your love of the show is clear (I also like your Lynch impression for the record!) but there is offering analysis and then there's intellectual posturing and I think you're in the space between these different coloured lodges.

"Talking things to death makes them smaller." You said it bro :).

Also, Lynch saying every interpretation is valid does not conflict with him saying that every thing he creates serves an idea. The idea, the abstraction, and its translation by him into the screen, is then interpreted by the audience. He didn’t say there is a single correct plot line. It’s a work of art

I liked the OG video but at 17:40 you show EXACTLY how you stretch. Not needing to say here that your address toward those saying you're stretching is quite bad. Like, really bad. Let me break it down. Someone says you stretch, say stretch too much into being about tv. You say stretching means: force. Then you say forcing means: we think you are making complex ideas too simple. This is not what people mean. Obviously. Stretching means applying your ideas too broadly, too too much. To more than your ideas apply to. Simple. And this fault in the OG piece is shown here when you overcomplicate and misapply something you simply want to say, that it's okay to put a cap on what something means. You are stretching what you want to say onto a defense against stretching. It's ... Kind of amazing.

“Cable television is the new art-house.” -David Lynch There’s a correct interpretation; yours just isn’t it. You’ve got a few things right, and so many things wrong. Pan out. Yes, it’s meta and self aware as a show, but your thesis only makes sense if the “real world” is an accurate representation of base reality, and is therefore totally ontologically different from the realities in the show. You might believe that personally, but the show itself takes a different metaphysical position.

I woudn't consider myself a critic, once I simply disagree with the interpretation and do not engage in critizing you for a different idea. In my humble opinion, David would never create a show along with Mark Frost, where you would have to get clues from a technical search on Google about Alternating Current or from videos of interviews with Lynch, for example. I think it's bigger than that. It's very easy to condense figurative ideas into some metalinguistic concept, and that's, by the way, not David's style, let alone Mark Frost. For instance, people do the same thing with Eraserhead: they say Henry was the reflection of Lynch and that the movie is about the nightmare of parenthood in his mind, while he says that it's his most spiritual film and that Henry's character is a much wider reflection of our own society! And, furthermore, I don't think it's right to totally ignore Mark Frost great influence on the show, basically supporting the whole interpretation on only Lynch's ideas.

I hate to say this although I’m sure plenty of others have already said it but by virtue of what art is, it’s always a mere fact that art can be interpreted from the perspective that art is made up by a person who makes art, it’s the equivalent of saying that a writer writes, a filmmaker makes films. In other words, it’s a mere starting point. A correct starting point, but by no means the last possible destination, let alone even an interesting destination. The metafictional layer is obviously there, but to assert its primacy is like reading a poem at the metatextual level only, and then to close the book on it, like saying that it means thought is always going to be trapped in language, or that humans are always going to have to confront their own mortality, etc. It’s not incorrect to say but saying it’s the correct interpretation is also to be missing the point completely. Because we can say it about anything that was constructed by humans, or through conscious intention. The fact that an artificer can also tailor this metalevel of meaning by being conscious of it, doesn’t mean that this consciousness is the sum total of the entire message, the other levels of meaning are still operating in the art, and are just as important. So much more important would be to consider the implications of the metatextual starting point in relation to David Lynch as a person living in this world that we all live in, and what is the dream of this world, and who are the dreamers, etc. ? The point isn’t to know his/the original idea, which is impossible, or impossible to prove, but to consider its function as a symbol in relation to its correlate in reality, that is, our own consciousness, and our connection to the mystery of this world through something like dreams, or the experience of trying to figure something out like Twin Peaks, unsolved murders in history, aliens, occultism, etc.

Watching Twin Peaks: The Return, I noticed its likeness to The Odyssey and the TV-shaped glass box clued me in to some level of meta-commentary going on, and those two observations helped me feel satisfied with the season and its ending while still not understanding it all that well. I didn't pull too hard at either thread and unravel all the pieces, I don't know how far I would have gotten. It was really thrilling watching these and recognizing I was on a good trail, both on the Lynch level and the Frost level of signification. You were incredibly thorough. Thanks for all the work you put into this.

"Everybody's a detective and whatever they come up with is valid in my mind" Funny enough, that got me thinking of what David Lynch did to television shows in the 90's being very similar to what Scott Cawthon did to video games in the 2000's. In two different mediums, they both ignited the water cooler effect. Wonder if Scott Cawthon may have been a Twin Peaks fan...

Yet, there is a chap called Mark Frost who is as important to Twin Peaks as Lynch himself. Yet, obsession can make you ignore basic facts.Mark Frost was involved with Fire Walk With Me, and the famous RING is Frost's mythology.

6:36 The problem is you don't know what the original idea was. This is simply your opinion on what it may be. Your opinion on the central idea will never be "fact" or definitive and I'm sorry if that's upsetting for someone like you who is clearly an overthinker.

5 hours of theories with 20 minutes for potential mistakes. Man is confident

Just wanted to state that i'm stupid. Am I the only one?

I kept saying that for 25 years, people comparing tp to lost, I was like no tp has a solid structure at its very core, it means something cohesive while lost is just a buffer of peace meal ideas. Tp respected it’s audience and it’s intelligence. Well except season 2.

“A flawless counter argument” eh? The mother of all arguments?. The argument to end all arguments?. That’s sounds a bit like a polite way of saying “you can pipe down now please because I’m right”.

“And then, another problem is talking something to death. You start thinking about articulating a certain thing, and then you suddenly see it for what is is and the magic goes away a little bit. It’s tricky. When you talk about things - unless you’re a poet - a big thing becomes smaller.” Now what could we apply this quote to...?

I think “what you got wrong” is believing that you cracked the code. You did not. What you did and your viewers -like me- are grateful for is providing new ways to analyze Twin Peaks. We might not agree with everything you said, and that’s fine; we don’t have to. You contradict Lynch’s initial vision by wanting everyone to agree with you. Also, even if you don’t want to address it, Mark Frost has a LOT to say about this. You have mentioned on several occasions Lynch's frustration with Frost’s ideas execution in the first two seasons, but I think this also applies to Mark when he saw how David took some creative liberties in The Return. E.G., If you read The Final Dossier (which you cannot do a proper analysis without taking everything in consideration), you can see the character of Tammy Preston has an entirely different personality than the one portrayed in the TV show. I can imagine Mark Frost trying to reconcile his ideas once he sees David Lynch’s final product, which, even though It is a masterpiece, does not express the full vision of both creators. I said that because if even the two closest collaborators in the project did not agree on everything, you could have a humble attitude about all the different perspectives we’re sharing. Another example, for Mark, Audrey Horne is crearly in a mental institution. Lynch is way way less literal than Frost and he chooses to engage that part of the history with a different open ended meaning. He could have in mind that metta response that you use to clear Every Mystery here, but that doesn't mean he disagrees with Frost, it is another interpretation that resonates better with Lynch’s style. That doesn't mean what Mark said is wrong, but DL has a different thought-provoking approach that works on many levels (being metta only one small part of his seed). Taking about style, everyone has their own on their YT channels, and I’m not the one to tell you how to run a channel (as your channel is pretty successful). But I suggest you double-check the lines between confident/sarcastic and arrogant/condescending. That made your videos for me hard to watch. It was not about the length or how you stretch out simple explanations to add more Ads. But the unearned attitude towards something that you think you know but you don’t. Anyway, maybe all this is just part of your marketing strategy to keep people engaged with your channel. If that’s the case, there are better ways by creating new content instead of mocking your audience, actors, writers, and everything that is behind a project and beyond what you think is the director’s vision. You think you know the tricks but you'll never understand the magician’s mind and that's the real magic. If you understand David Lynch by now, you would see that you’re not “Judy” (as you superbly said in your previous video), but just another “food critic” like Vivian Smythe (Norma’s stepmom). In case you skip my post, long story short, 1. try to be more humble as you will never hold the absolute answers. 2. Reading is free, don't disregard Frost’s contributions. 3. No, not everything is metta in Twin Peaks and that's why you skipped on many mysteries on purpose and cherry-picked the ones that suit your explanation. That's “what you got wrong.”

7:17 This is what you are getting wrong. The difference between the big picture and details. You probably nailed the main ideas 100% but then went over the line and stretched those ideas to explain all the unimportant details. The big ideas are there, and can be deciphered by clues. But there is a line where the big picture ends and there are smaller details. The meanings of those details aren't "hidden" by Lynch. He doesn't hide them. They are hidden to him as well. It's surrealism, not symbolism. The meanings literally don't exist because those things weren't created consciously. And the purpose of those details was to add to the feel, not to the meaning of the show. Those are Lynch's pillow shots. The scene with the woman in red and Desmond explaining the ridiculous "clues" feels like it is exactly mocking that kind of thinking, not supporting it. I.e. if all the details were consciously created and fully explainable, they would be as ridiculous as the woman in red.

As long as you're answering criticisms... I find my two biggest problems with yours not answered. The first one is that you consider one singular meaning of an audiovisual media being somehow more interesting to director than the others. It's a very Brechtian approach, but also rather diminishing, one I'm not sure Brecht himself would've agreed with. Foremost that makes me wonder whether you understand how filmmaking works as an art and, for that matter, how art works, collectively and with single author. Yes, artist gives opinion through art and an art object conveys some message(s), but many things which we conventionally consider masterpieces deal with multiple themes. Artists explores subject(s), audience find beauty in it. Sometimes also sense, but beauty, overall, is enough. Why is that so offensive of an idea for something to have multiple layers, ALL of which are right? I mean, I won't pretend I am an expert, because neither 18 years spent on filmmaking nor PhD with my thesis being tied directly to finding meaning in audiovisual media (if from a standpoint of political science) make me one. In my core I am an insecure amateur. I'm not even bringing those for bragging rights, mind you. Just to say that I still feel like a moron even when everything tells me otherwise. The more I learn, the more experience I get, the more doubts I have as a result. And the more I marvel why some people just stop there after a certain point and approach the world from a POV of 'grown-up', simply starting to fail in many aspects and not acknowledging it. As much as my heart bleeds for my own misfortunes on every front, my heart also bleeds for artists, who spend their lifetimes on filmography, discographies, painting catalogs or bibliographies only for someone to tarnish their complex nature laid out in multiple works into something very trivial. And that leads us to another problem of an almost equal magnitude in your critical approach to Lynch: it, consciously or not, borders mocking and bullying. And that's kind of upsetting to see and really weakens the overall structure of your essays. From personal experience things like that also very much come hand-in-hand with confirmation bias. I don't know whether it's how you're seeing it, but for me you come across as someone who will absolutely consider oneself superior to artist for 'figuring it all out', not taking into consideration that there is simply no rivalry between the critic and the artist. Even bad artist with one decent work wins in the long run, because critic's work is a supplement and seldom takes as much time and effort. And your effort, while adequate, just could be summed up with your David Lynch impression. With intonations of your voice. I believe the word is 'smug'. Also 'sensationalist'. That is also how you come across from thumbnails alone. There is an inherent and very jarring mismatch between presentation and theoretical research of yours which I just can't be onboard with. Same goes for everything, starting with the about page of your channel. "Remember it's okay to be wrong!". Do you remember that yourself, though? Because, you see, in my humble opinion doubt is essential. It is especially essential in art. Most of the negativity we associate with art comes from absence of doubt on artist's part: definite (and yet somehow all the more shallow for it) statements, overly bold overdeveloped style. Heck, lack of evolution is also there, as using the same old tricks and not experimenting is the way to avoid doubt. When something is a result of gradual (and oftentimes very painful) trial-an-error development and earned insights it's more in the vein of clarity, however abstract the term is. And when it's something that constantly motivates and dictates your work, that's where bias begins. Just one simple example of that bias: your split screen which is there to illustrate Lynch's and Frost's approaches has 'Invitation to Love' and Frost's books. Regardless of whether you're aware that 'Invitation to Love' in its entirety is written and directed by Mark Frost it just comes off as a pull immediately. Manipulative statement, at best.

I'm convinced that Blue Velvet is a prototype for Twin Peaks and that it has the same moral parable.

I could find no evidence that David Lynch checked himself into a rape crisis centre, lol. I found an article that stated that Rodley's forward meant: "Lynch *felt* like checking into a rape crisis center." as was denoted in the previous sentence; about his fear & trepidation of *[being interviewed].* This is a well-known fact about how Lynch feels about being interviewed, and is certainly not "proof" of the meaning behind a 2017 rape scene as: a metaphor for how Lynch felt about the "audience forcing itself on TP in 1991". universityobserver.ie/o-two-icon-david-lynch/ The thing that brought me back to this site was a 2017 interview I just saw, where Lynch says he would work on cable tv again, (bc it's about the *idea* ) says that Frost* had the *idea* for bringing TP back, and that they *shared* ideas over sn 3 until it was done. I'll link it, bc it's about 6 mins long-David SERIOUSLY doesn't like interviews. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WGo3ZUQ6h_8.html

Glad you had the Mark Frost part in the end. Was my biggest issue with the original video because regardless of our perception of involvement Twin Peaks IS Lynch & Frost together

Are there sources for Lynch directing or providing material for the independent Log lady monologues?

As a case study in “what happens when people are just given the answer?”, please see Donnie Darko. The actual, confirmed by the writer, explanation of everything going on in that movie is really, really disappointing.

I think the "meta" levels actually validate the characters of the story even more. It actually gives them more "life", thinking that, probably, Mr Lynch considered them to be "real" and actually CARED about their lots INSIDE the TV realm, so much as he was trying to "save" them from what he thought was corrupting the medium and flooding it with meaningless violence and darkness. To me, that´s super fascinating, something a modern day shaman might do. Magically altering reality through storytelling, and turning storytelling devices and participants into actual human representatives. That´s something that has been done from the beginning of humankind, think of all the gods, demi-gods, demons and spirits representing different aspects of our lives and experiences. He´s letting the TV show talk about it´s own experience and existence, in a way.

the one possible contradiction in what you say is, if Lynch is intending to correct the imbalance in the zeitgeist by injecting depth where there's shallowness and confronting chaos and fear in the zeitgeist with a view to restoring love and peace or something (I forget what you said exactly) isn't the overwhelming effect and substance of his work, Twin Peaks and especially The Return just that, fear and chaos? I feel Lynch produces negativity himself far more than anything else. It reminds me very much of the early Surrealists' stated intent of trying to create "hallucinatory nightmare states" à la Dali & Yves Tanguy.I find the fun and illuminating things in his work ultimately are just like bait and the cumulative, longer term effects are to gradually drag you into a black pit of a certain type of consciousness. I don't sense good intentions or spirit in his work. But maybe that's his whole idea, to take you into the black pit of the unconscious to see if you can work your way out of it into consciousness in terms of the absolute sense of the unified field of infinite consciousness you can experience through TM. It seems like a Lynch thing to do to confront a perception of fear and chaos in the zeitgeist by producing shows that ultimately are most notably full of those same things themselves. Perhaps the answer then is that while flawed in its execution in that sense, he's over-intellectualising the expansion of this idea in the way that intellectuals and aesthetes can do and out of touch with the reality of what his shows are full of and the inherent contradiction between supposed intent and execution. The Return being a brutal and exhausting experience I could only watch once, as brilliant as it is, the thing that struck me is that to me, Frost and Lynch are too obsessed with and hung up on power and that's the flaw in their work. To my mind all that darkness and brutality ultimately serves thematic, psychological and aesthetic fixation with power which is ultimately unfulfilling and destructive which they themselves are unaware of. Like they think it's the ultimate liberator or ultimately fulfilling, are imo are incorrect about that and unaware of it.

The meta part of twin peaks isn't just something as cheap or shallow as a commentary on "consumable TV violence", the meta is in sync with both frost and lynch in that Cooper is the magician/detective going between two worlds to confront his shadow and redeem the soul of Twin Peaks, and by extension the audience does as well because all of Lynches works require you to become a detective of the dream, enter the shadow unconscious world and find balance. The return is ultimately a work of love on those characters, who are real to both Lynch and Frost. You are right about the interpretation of symbols being clues to a grander Meta dream within a dream narrative, but it's not referencing directly the audience in the way you think, because that would make Twin Peaks the return a cynical joke. Cooper, Nadine etc. they are not stand ins for anything, they are real characters like Lynch says, what the audience does is relate to these characters, and there is a big difference here between identifying yourself with them and empathy/feeling. Finally why I feel you miss a more nuanced view of the meta narratives intent, is because you ignore the death of the author. Whatever lynch intended to say with the meta commentary, it is by definition outside of his control, because it wrests on the audience on what kind of emotional closure or meaning they will get from that work of art (outside of the main narrative structure that is), so a more nuanced view imo wouldn't sum it all up in a tidy sense that the final effect of the show was Lynch just preaching with a megaphone to the audience. Because ultimately it begs the question, why return if there isn't something meaningful in traveling with these characters "between two worlds". It begs the question of artistic integrity and honesty. Other than I'm right there with you that there is a very clearly defined meta commentary and I admire that you took so much time to explain so much. You definitely have the right detectives clues.

Mark Frost’s explanations are much better understood than David Lynch’s. Lynch likes to be vague and obscure.

i watched all three seasons and the movie and my interpretation is that twin peaks is all about dualities and a contemporary and creative expression of some of the oldest (good vs evil/light vs dark) stories in our world. coffee (bitter) vs donuts/pie (sweet), Laura Palmer (blonde) vs Maddy Ferguson (brunette), Black Lodge vs White Lodge, etc. even the name, TWIN peaks, alludes to the overall theme.

The core explanation from the 4+ hour video has been on Reddit for a couple years now. What I appreciate with these videos is the effort you put into this massive deep dive that wonderfully expands on it. It also really shows the brilliance of what Lynch and Frost achieved.

The unified field is neutral. Through mystery questions arise. The human detective capacitors close the circuit and allow the field to flow as the question creates tension in the field. The golden ring is separation from the field as it simulates the tension but closes the circuit apart from it forming a closed circle, closure. It is way beyond meta TV...

TLDR: “My original video was perfect, and anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is really stupid and closed-minded.”

A good analogy for how you explained interpretation would be a kaleidoscope. A central item that's interesting on its own but is made much more interesting when viewed through a lens that abstracts it. You can even view it from different perspectives to see entirely different things

Having watched the explainer video, I feel like twin peaks is so much more fascinating than they're originally was to me.

as both an artist and an experiencer of.... rope, I just want to say that Lynch checking himself into a trauma centre is really quite an understandable action. there are a lot of things I say in my art, but speaking the words and giving it life can be incredibly traumatic, you open yourself in a way that people don’t often do. if anything I’m really glad he recognized and sought tools to deal with that trauma.

Just realised something: a digital waveform signal is usually shown as a series of rectangles but the effect on its receiver is to create a zig-zag form that looks like the diagonal lines of the Red Room. I can't remember if this was covered by the Twin Perfect videos so thought I'd mention it here. Also, depending on the lag/latency of the receiver (i.e. if its voltage levels drop immediately/vertically or gradually/diagonally) sometimes the waveform has a sawtooth shape like the circular saw in the original opening!

This guy did a lot of research and I love his brain for it, but no Mark Frost... No Twin Peaks. So until I see a video about what the inside of Mark's Brain looks like, I'll just enjoy his INTERPRETATION of TP: One of many, that is no more correct than the next.

We live in a world where the word "rape" cannot be said in a serious discussion of ideas. What the fuck.

25:50 that really caught me off guard there. My room smells of coffee now.

I don't get one thing.. If David doesn't like what was done in season two, made his point during season two finale, made another point in movie and another in return, why he still wants to make another season? Just to make another point how Twin Peaks was lost after season one and how we can't get over with it? Who can't get over with it more, audience or the author?

"The focus is not on your conclusion, the focus is on you coming to your conclusion." This is why I lost so much respect for Darren Aronofsky when he not only openly discussed the meaning of Mother! almost immediately after release, but outright admitted that the only ambiguous element left in the film meant nothing and had been bullshitted up entirely so the audience could bullshit up whatever meaning they wanted in return.

I think you've misplaced the reasons I dislike your "actually explained, really, objectively" labelling and attitude, I'd say theres a 4th reasoning and for me it is that you literally labelled it that. Before i continue i just want to say, I do actually enjoy these videos quite a bit, just throwing in my 2 cents. I think its a little pompous to assert that you HAVE, unequivocally, ascertained lynches goals. I don't even think you are that far off, personally, I disagree with a few analyzations of particularly small aspects, and i disagree that you are explaining the entirety of his vision, and I disagree that everything was done perfectly intentionally, lynch has been clear that sometimes something just feels right and you figure out why only as you are editing it or watching it. I also think there are elements of his work that have more to do with his spiritual beliefs, and I think there are elements that you attribute to Lynch that are likely attributable to Mark Frost or sometimes other writers in the case of the 1st and 2nd seasons. I think its important to realize that art, especially film, is often not the work of one individual in a vacuum, it is a series of reactions made by people interpreting the work, much the way you talk about the audience in this video. In the end the work is interpretable more than one way not JUST because of the magical smokescreen, or the works interactions with our own psyche, but ALSO because of the effect that actors, episode directors, co-writers, producers, the medium, the time. Like, in a way this is a really classic "Death of the Author" type of debate, and I would make the post-modern argument that the author is neither dead nor living, and as consumers we live in a sort of "Schrodingers TV Screen". Just came up tih that, feels true, not even sure what i entirely mean. Someone comment back and we'll figure it out along the way! (Oh, i really enjoyed saying that, i think i've got a nibble on the idea-hook)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I always thought the show was implying that Leland didn't actually kill Laura and that perhaps Leland had a doppelganger of his own. In the Black Lodge at the end of Season 2, Leland appears and says something to the effect of "I didn't kill her". Then, in Season 3, we see him again in the lodge, asking Cooper to "find Laura".

To anyone who thinks your interpretation is "EASY" ......well those people are nuts........................you really have sit with the show and look deep inside to find even the most surface levels of meaning. You explaining the waves was much like Lynch explaining that the white horse is the white of the eyes.........but I did not understand what it meant until you explained it means looking away.

Thanks a lot! It was a pleasure to listen to your point of view. I'm from Russia. I'm Twin Peaks fan since 1997. it was shown on TV. And it impressed me by its atmosphere.

*light shines on Laura's face in the lodge* Twin Perfect: "She is literally SEEING HERSELF ON TV learning that she had to die to stop mindless TV violence" Meanwhile it's literally just the light from the angel shining on her

David lynch would say you are completely wrong

Thanks for talking about the TM aspects of this show and how it relates to the integration of the shadow self. First analysis on RU-vid that makes that connection!

Still with the David Lynch focus? I believe you’re right about what you say about him, and his work, but it’s as if he oversaw every aspect of Twin Peaks. He absolutely did not, and you have to factor that in instead of downplaying the work of the many other creators who helped shape the show. Twin Peaks is NOT a “David Lynch film”, and even he would say that. You try to side step this by saying Lynch had His vision. Even if you claim that Lynch had a vision, and other writers had their visions, you’re saying that Lynch’s vision is the One True Vision. Well, I’m watching a show that has other people’s visions in them. So how can you say that Lynch’s usurps them all?

Has Lynch ever formally responded to these videos? Would be interesting to hear his thoughts

1980s TV had wholesome shows like The Waltons, Highway to Heaven, Dukes of Hazzard, and a slew of nonviolent, often family sitcoms from The Cosby Show (no rape) to Family Ties to The Wonder Years with worthwhile moral messaging. Even the A Team (sometimes comically) avoided killing anyone. Shows that did feature killing like Airwolf, Magnum PI, cop shows, etc. typically did so within an ethical framework where bad guys committed murder and good guys killed in self defense or to protect others, often in the line of duty. It's exaggerated representations of the situations real life soldiers, cops, and civilians sometimes find themselves in, and conveys the mind sets they need to have in those emergencies to defend themselves, their families, and/or society. It wasn't about "consuming violence" because people loved killing. In fact they typically had happy endings because that's what fans wanted. They wanted that because they actually cared about the characters. Most want that with Twin Peaks too. Shows were sometimes violent because people have always found high stakes dramatic action compelling. Lynch's work is as filled with that as anyone else's. Nor do I get the "climate of fear" stuff. Americans were generally optimistic and happy in the 80s, especially once the Cold War was clearly tilting our way in the second half of the decade, we had enjoyed several years of economic boom, and the divisive social strife of the 60s/70s was getting further in the rear view mirror. And if Lynch's complaint was that viewers were too numb to TV violence, wouldn't the problem be that people weren't afraid enough, and his goal was to make them MORE afraid of violence? More sensitive? You've admitted that Twin Peaks has been the most influential series on subsequent tv. And it's undeniably gotten way more violent and degenerate, with anti-hero leads and morally ambiguous plots added to the mix. There are a lot of people watching today who DO just get a kick out of violence, the more gruesome the better. So if your theory about Lynch's desired impact is correct (And I agree that Lynch obviously wanted to use Laura to emphasis the ripple effects of tragedy, though I think your in-story "tv show" theory is far from proven, even if I appreciate you making a serious argument), then did he fail spectacularly? Did Twin Peaks make things worse by bringing cinematic style, violence, and depravity to tv? I'm not sure why someone would consider movies morally superior to television, especially back then. Was it just their non-episodic nature? Was this truly a moral complaint are an artistic preference?

After binging this entire analysis series, I find it increasingly difficult not to hear Lynch-impersonation inflections in your regular speaking voice. :))

one thing that doesnt match your explaination is that theres is a lots of thing you consider like important clue for your correct interpretation . that you also can find in eraserhead or other lynch movies . like the obsession for electricity ,thing in the air, the wave line ( in eraserhead you can find the same black lodge floor for exemple ) . so these details have same signification in other context ? or its just another things ? so why use the same language ? do you think your interpretation can be use in all lynch cinematography . eraserhead it s about tv also ?

We are like the dreamer who dreams then lives inside the dream. But who is the dreamer? That’s the clue that lead to me think this was a dream a man named Richard had the night his wife Linda left him. Don’t know if I’m right or now but I like to think I’m close either way I love David Lynch’s mind he is an artistic genius. The way he tells a story is truly unique.

Lost Highway is David Lynch at party I was at with him in LA. There was this amateur magician with a trick cellphone, name was Marty something, also went by Mysterious Marty and Mysterious Marvin and Amazing Marvin. The rest is about OJ Simpson killing Nicole Simpson. Dick Laurent is Dead, is what someone said to him at his house one day over the intercom.

The biggest criticism you should be getting, if you haven't gotten it already, is the fact that you chalk it all up to being a meta commentary on how TV is affecting society in a bad way. No doubt that there is some of that in there, informing the plot to an extent, but it can't be the entire reason for Twin Peaks' existence. There's clearly a story and a well established lore, evident by the level of involvement Mike Frost has and how in-depth he's gotten with the TP books whether if they should be regarded as canon or not. At the end of the day, the story has to matter and it has to be governed by the rules and mechanic of the universe they're created in to serve the purposes of the said universe-even if there are no clearcut explanations offered to the mysteries driving the plot, or any obvious conclusion to the story. Giving the message more importance over the story is a film student level of filmmaking, which is something I doubt a seasoned master like Lynch would do.

I agree about Twin Peaks being a commentary on television. It makes sense as both Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire get into Lynch's views regarding Hollywood and the movie industry...

Aren't you David Lynch's enemy since you're explaining it? According to his quotes.

Why is the word "rape" bleeped at 21:00? How is that an offensive word? The act itself is offensive, not the word for it. If someone gets raped the person should be able to talk about it if they wanted to.

Lynch plucks ideas from deep within his mind through meditation and follows his emotions. He leaves it to others to figure out what he meant, and often is not sure himself. Mary Sweeney said he was watching his own footage once and said, "Ah maybe that's what I meant!" Sometimes people read too much into his work, looking for significance everywhere. For example, the reason The Arm evolved into a tree is because the actor refused to appear in season 3, not for the reasons given in the explanatory video.

At the end of the very 1st episode the actor Carel Struyken is not listed as the Fireman in the credits. There are just ???????. This means ( to me ) that Dale Cooper has returned after Twin Peaks dies and therefore he is no longer the Fireman because there is no more fire. No more electricity. No more ideas being generated. It is in our house now!!!! Thanks again for your awesome explainers !

15:20... i would have to disagree on this. I believe when Lynch says "things exist" that he means that imaginary beings exist as do non imaginary beings-in a different way-but they do exist. For example: some say King Arthur was not a real person...but the character does exist (this is different from saying that ancient kings that united tribes existed).

Have anyone tried Hearing the people talking in the red room in reverse ???

The reason you're having to make this video is definitely one of the reasons David never talks too much about the meaning of his work

Thank you for sharing this thesis as it gives me motivation to rewatch with a new perspective. I have always appreciated the idea of Twin Peaks, and also struggled to get into it because I felt I couldn’t reach any closer to solving the mystery. Seeing this in 2024, the message is more important than ever. Your way of exploring these themes was well organized and engaging. I thoroughly enjoyed watching each of these videos and look forward to seeing more of your channel. I hope you’ll eventually upload a new video!

Why would you take lynch at his word so much and then discount the fact he said mark frost is at least half.