Twin Peaks, Homeland, and solving mysteries (difference, similar)

[juppiter]

SPOILERS within to non-viewers of Twin Peaks and Homeland...


....


Twenty years after "Twin Peaks," one of its legacies is what a mistake revealing Laura Palmer's murderer was. It wasn't the true point of the show, according to the creators, but it was the plot device the show revolved around. One the mystery was solved the show lost its "raison d'être."

Now "Homeland" is sort of the "Twin Peaks" of this era. It is breaking rules, pushing boundaries, and it is critically acclaimed. Just like "Twin Peaks" solved its mystery midway through season two, "Homeland" ended its cat-and-mouse game and had Brody's terrorist leanings revealed to the main characters.

The key difference is that the identity of Laura Palmer's murdered on "Peaks" was revealed to the audience and the characters at the same time whereas Brody had been known to be guilty by the audience since mid-to-late season one.

I was worried when "Homeland" revealed the truth about Brody to the main characters, and I thought that maybe someday it would be remembered for the same flaw "Twin Peaks" is remembered for. I had honestly expected Carrie to be guessing at Brody and almost-but-not-quite proving Brody's guilt until the series finale. But, for me at least, "Homeland" has managed to retain its edge and take the plot in new directions without ruining the dynamic between the two leads.

So it makes me wonder. When should a mystery remain a mystery? Was "Homeland" different than "Twin Peaks" because the audience already knew? When should a mystery remain a mystery? Let me know if my question here is not clear enough...

[banjomike]

I guess it all depends on what sort of format the mystery is. Episodic television series like Twin Peaks, Heroes, and Lost all seem to have built-in life spans. The mystery has to be resolved at some point, or, like in Lost, everything becomes an ever-expanding muddle with no good resolution ever happening.

I'm not sure if some episodic shows ever had an ending written when they went on the air. Heroes obviously had one; it's ending, with the narrow averting of nuclear destruction, was perfect for it's following of the entire series concept. We first learned there were special people among us, then learned what their abilities were, then why they had those abilities, and then we met the bad guys, watched the struggle between good and bad, and then the resolution.

But Heroes also shows the traps that come when a series, that by it's nature, is limited. Heroes' ending was so good, and the ratings were so high, the network wanted more. So more was written, starting from a 'what do we do now?' mentality rather than the clear development of the first episodes. Resurrecting the bad villain is always a bad idea, and it didn't take very long for the return to dissolve into jumbled nonsense.

The Sopranos was similar. It ran on too long, and they couldn't come up with any good way to end it without the creation of an entirely new story arc that would have had to take 2 or 3 more seasons to work out. The series' ending pleased no one as a result.

Any mystery, whether written as a book, a movie, a play, or as a television series has to have the same essentials. A plot has to have an arc- a beginning, a middle and an end. The same rules apply in television just as much as any other medium. If a mystery series is to be successful, it must have either many mysteries, solved one after another, done in one or two episodes, or it must have a season long arc with either an ending or a cliffhanger that leads into the next season. If the second is done, then a planned ending must come at some point, whether it is the end of the second, third, fourth or fifth season. More than 5 seems to be too much; audiences grow tired of anticipating an ending that never comes.

[jtur88]

I just subscribed to Shotime so I've been watching a new Homeland every day, and just caught up last night. One of the things that is unique about Homeland is that the entire story line is predicated on the existence of people of deceptive identity using disguises, unlike a suburban pedestrian story in which people generally are expected to behave in character. On the plus side, the writers can suddenly decide to compromise a character and backfill the circumstances, but on the minus side, the device can be overused and leave the audience jaded.