Sorry...same topic, with a subject line this time.  Long story.  Head hung in shame...

I was noticing a lot of bemused references to the possibility of Cooper being "The Magician" in the 'Twin Peaks continuity' thread.  It has to be said that there is very little continuity in the gonzo writing style of series, film and "spin-offs" (which to me encompasses everything else TP and I intend the term to be as dismissive and sniffy as it sounds). Clearly, loads of stuff from the books and the film contradict what we see in the series and nothing fits seamlessly together, even within the series itself.  You take what you want to take.  Hence the multiplicity of theories and the (blissfully) endless discussion of what it all means.

That said, there is enough thematic and subtextual cohesion to what was written and directed for me to posit again the seemingly highly contentious theory that Cooper - who may be one of many - is the (a) Magician - which may also be a collective or general term, like 'The English' or 'The wildebeest' -  referrred to in the poem.  Here is a list of reasons which are presented in bullet-point-style to support my contention:

- The use of the phrase '...longs to see...'  The idea of longing (yearning, desiring without quite knowing how to achieve your desire) for something is distinctly human and doesn't sound like the domain of a figure already ensconsed in a timeless, 'other place'.  This would rule out Mike, Bob etc. who are already masters of their universe.

- Cooper's interest in spirituality and the irrational, as an FBI man goes beyond the norm and is clearly a curiosity, an inquisitiveness, a 'longing', if you will,  to see the bigger picture (beyond the scientific domain of facts and figures).  

- We all know what curiousity did to the cat.  But I still maintain that Cooper didn't actually fail in his quest to become 'the magician'.  Perhaps he underestimated the personal and social cost it would have in the real world but look at him there at the end of FWWM: calm, self-assured, guiding Laura through as he did with Leland in a space temporarily expunged of malicious influences.

- He chants out "Fire Walk With Me" in the last episode, which is set 'between two worlds'.

- Cooper/Kyle is DL's alter-ego.  Everyone involves accepts that.  DL seemingly spends his whole life and artistic enterprise longing for magic (even, in the case of TM, with pseudo-scientific backing).  'Pierre Tremond, a character based on the alter-ego grandson in Lynch's earlier short 'The Grandmother', is 'learning magic', we are told.  In the series this character is played by (I think!) Lynch's own son.

I believe this theory, which I hope is nothing new, fits neatly with Cooper's characterisation and "journey" and I wonder if anyone has any further thoughts on this idea?

Thanks for posting this, Wangster. Everyone else thought I was crazy.

Your reference to the 'gonzo' style of filming/writing made me think...not so much about the 'magician' issue that has become so pertinent, but of the series as a whole, and how it fits into the framework of television.

As the cliché goes, Twin Peaks was groundbreaking as a television show in most respects...then, the 'writers got sloppy, lynch and frost abandoned it, etc etc...'

But what you said about nothing in the canon/continuity seamlessly fitting together has made me think (DISCLAIMER: APOLOGIES IF THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE, IT ALMOST CERTAINLY HAS, DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF TP RELATED SPECULATION) about the TWIN PEAKS franchise as a whole- perhaps every facet of it is a play on conventions- I mean, we all know that elements of season 1 were deliberately poking fun at soap opera conventions...but in a meta-media sense, the entire thing- Ridiculous plotlines (Evelyn, Little Nicky), 'Soapy' plotlines (Wheeler and Audrey, Lucy's paternal dilemma), the dip in quality, the disjointed transition between the murder being solved, and what occurs afterward;FWWM not matching up with the series...the diaries, books etc...They all point to the concept that television and film-based phenomena lack the coherence that people tend to demand of them.

Twin peaks is far less "Strictly artistic" than say Inland Empire, but it has the same innovative nature, albeit on a different level. It purposefully points out and subverts the concepts that allow most TV dramas to thrive: mystery, plot twists...and then it 'pulls the rug out' by introducing the Black Lodge- as the disjointed plotlines come together and bear fruit, the pseudo-coherent structure evaporates into a purely aesthetic experience...Not merely "weird for the sake of being weird", but knocking down those conventions of storytelling/drama and narrative for something almost incomprehensible.

Thus, all of the melodrama, the 1950's atmosphere, the dream sequences, the eastern mysticism, the murder mystery, the ongoing tycoon conspiracy, issues of paternity, romances, high school- all of these tried and tested devices are reduced, the methods of telling the story broken down, deliberately so, in order to achieve that disjointed affect in the storytelling.

For instance, and issue I was going to post in another thread was the relationship of the Renault brothers- never seen together, and I doubt that Leo would mess with Bernie and Jacques, considering how "dangerous" jean is...to me, this is a deliberate warping of consistency and characterisation.

Thomas Eckhart is build up as an almost demonic character, and yet after being barely introduced, is swiftly dispersed of, instead of being allowed to develop. this contrasts with the laid back pacing of the rest of the show.

 Even the transition between Series and FWWM is evidence of this desire to demolish storytelling expectations- The cliff-hanger to end all cliff-hangers is featured at the end of the show, and rather than elaborating on this, Lynch goes back to Ground Zero (murder, the Pilot) and even before then- completely throwing fans off, taking a completely unexpected turn in the perception of the franchise. The film even boldly misadjusts time, context and placement, whilst eradicating much of the humour so prevalent in the series. Even Donna literally morphs in the prequel, as though Moira Kelly's sweet innocence cannot be sustained after Laura's murder.

So, sorry if I went verrry off topic, but you inspired me to type out this nonsense! Hope it makes some kind of sense...

 

Yeah, good points Cooped.  Some of the lapses in continuity from the film to the pilot are hilarious, like Leo Johnson's miracle weight loss.  There was little regard paid to cohesion by Lynch and the writers on the surface, but on a thematic level the film effectively tied together the final episode and the pilot, creating a complete cyclical narrative, another TV-smashing first!  (I think of the film as the gemstone on the ring.)  The subversion of genre and narrative was something that alienated as many people as it delighted but, for all its faults, Twin Peaks gave popular culture a much-needed shot for its Complacency virus and shook up TV good and proper!  Forever.

That said, some of plot developments were just plain badly-written.  The Eckhardt storyline was ballsed-up; there's no way Jean Renault existed before another interim nemesis had to be cooked up in the second season (why wouldn't Truman have told Cooper about Jean when discussing the Renault brothers?) and, most infuriatingly of all:  WHAT HAPPENED TO MIKE/GERRARD?! To have his last moment be some dippy "The answer lies in your heart, not your head" speech is unforgivable!

Unfortunately, the One Armed Man stuff (and most of ep 16) devolved into some half baked mystical mumbo jumbo. Far more effective than any of these 'spirits' was simply the shots of the traffic lights, wind blowing in the air- Cannot beat that atmosphere established in the pilot: what is it that's lurking out there, into the night?

 Loved your image of the film as being the gem on the ring!!!

I was also thinking that perhaps, as you say the film ties everything together...but Ep 29, in a relationship with creator, audience and narrative, ties the end of season 2 to season 1...

Lynch never wanted the killer to be revealed, and once the killer was revealed, Lynch lost interest, the plotlines went off on lower quality tangents, casual audiences tuned out, hardcore fans felt disapointed with how the murder was resolved. So in some ways to me, Ep 29 is nostalgic- Beyond the 'echoes' of the Pilot (heidi, too busy jumpstartin the old man etc) it turns the season 2 plots/characters into passive abstractions (earle is swiftly dispatched, Annie has short, poorly intoned lines-or is that heather grahams acting??- Whilst the audience/ Lynch get to reminisce...The red room! The little man!I understand when the dream was first broadcast (ep2), it caused much excitement and confusion- now the audience get that image so representative of what twin peaks seemed to be....Laura Palmer appears for the first time in so long(besides end credits)...Lynch and the audience miss the whodunnit? nature of the murder mystery, uncovering secrets about Laura- so here she is, presented, Miss Twin Peaks herself, the heart of the show....plus Leland appearing, brown haired once more: "i did not kill anybody"- Red room, Laura, Leland...all of these things indicate to me both Lynch and the audiences desire to 'put the genie back into the bottle'; to render Laura's death a mystery once more- Leland did not kill anybody, at least as far as we knew at the start of season one he did not...we want that central mystery back, that's why all of these disjointed elements of twin peaks appear...they were all connected to the murder, back when it was a watercooler subject...

I'M the goddamn MAGICIAN!