![]() There is so much about Twin Peaks that is worthy of the high praise it continually receives that it can often feel inappropriate to criticize any part of it. Can Roseanne continue to be a beloved show if you disagree with the prejudiced beliefs of its star? Can we still find something to love in the films of John Hughes in spite of what makes them problematic?Īfter months of internal and external debate on the subject, it seemed like the right time for me to ask the same kinds of questions with regard to Twin Peaks. In recent weeks, two high profile articles published in two venerable giants of the print media industry - Roxane Gay’s critique of the Roseanne reboot in the New York Times and Molly Ringwald’s reappraisal of The Breakfast Club in The New Yorker - have brought this issue into the public conversation. But sometimes you can’t ignore it, because the cognitive dissonance that arises is too much and it becomes necessary to point out the flaw in order to make sense of it, our reaction to it, and how it affects the original thing we held so dearly in light of this new evidence and viewpoint. ![]() We don’t want to risk finding those warts, even if (or especially if) we know they are present, as if having a flaw makes the thing we love less lovable somehow. ![]() Author’s Note: When you love something as much as we love Twin Peaks, it can sometimes be a challenge to appraise it critically, warts and all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |