This Is The Street

[applesnoranges]

OK I'm watching again little by little. I'm to the point where the girls are hanging around in her house gossiping about her broken relationship.

What do you mean by 6xgreen,1xred?

There is this "alarm-facility", when Sue opens the door. 6 green lights and 1 red light blink two times. I don`t know what that means. Maybe: Here`s little love.

OK I know what you mean then. But I don't think these kinds of color signs mean much in Lynch; i don't think he uses colors that way. Someone on davidlynch.com asked him what blue means to him and he went on and on describing a sort of cool feeling ... and he had a little smile on his face while he was saying it. People have noticed for years that he uses certain colors and try to figure out why or what he means to express. But I don't think he thinks that way. I think he uses them in two ways in IE. One, someone mentioned, is that he uses a lot of red, blue, and green, which relate to the colors of the digital signal. There is a message about the medium here: record player to radio show to black white movie to old color film movie to new digital movie. So I think the colors are part of that. It's as if those colors are like a tone row in music; just something to relate to visually. The second thing he does is to assign meanings. Like that blue/green color which is associated with Sue. That is different from thinking that colors have some innate meaning. So I think the switchboard means mostly that she is an intruder and has been noticed. It's big and flashy for drama, as if to underline that she is really out of place here.

Yes, one cannot clearly hear it. It seems that this is intended. I don`t know, if she says "Do you listen to me" or "Are you listening to me", but that`s an interesting question. I know it from the subtitles that it is either one or the another. So one cannot clearly understand it. But Billy says "No". Although he listens to her and although one cannot clearly understand it, he says "No".

Yes, OK. Now I don't think it matters which words are used. The Polish girl in white says that to the Polish Lucas character as he's leaving (The English subtitle says, "Are you listening to me?") It seems natural in that scene. It's something people say when they are frustrated that the other person isn't responding as they wish. So in a sense, what Billy says is understandable too. He means he hears her but is not convinced of anything she is saying. But it is strange the way he says no. Usually the other person doesn't answer. Also, I just noticed that it is like what Piotrek says to Devon upstairs: "I'm listening to you but I'm not hearing anything."

... One maybe wants to know reasons why one would feel more like Nikki or Sue in several situations and compare it with reality....

Yes, we keep trying to do that but Lynch and Dern have it pretty mixed up. Now, this time through, I've changed my mind about the whole sequence from the sex scene through Sue and her husband sleeping being Sue's dream. I think it works better as Nikki's (but not perfectly there either).

What I'm thinking is that Nikki is the one who heard that there was a previous movie made in Poland. As far as we know, Sue in OHIBT knows nothing about that. So Nikki would be dreaming about Sue meeting the hookers in her house who show her the street in Poland etc. Then she dreams of the record player and the Gruszka character telling her how to see with the watch etc. But that brings up two things: (1) there is no place for the dream to start so there is no reality to compare it to but itself, and (2) where did the learning to see with the watch and silk come from? They seem to be on a level outside what we thought we were watching. So I guess that means, where do any dreams come from? Not necessarily invented by the dreamer but from "out there" somewhere. In any case, the basic relationship seems to be between Nikki and Lost Girl. Sue seems to be a way for the two of them to communicate.

Yes, as far as I know David Lynch said that he doesn`t know what exactly IE means. But that doesn`t mean that there isn`t a story behind it somewhere. And human beings like to think in patterns of causality. So someone has something like IE and searches for something to make it more understandable - perhaps.

I don't understand it that way yet, but it does seem deliberately put together to say something. I only see parts at this point, which come together in places and then fly apart in others.

In the room with flashlights there is this woman who says: "In the future you will dream. When you open your eyes someone familiar will be there." This could mean: Until now you didn`t dream. Moreover Nikki closes her eyes then and opens it. Who is the familiar one?

That's an example of what I'm saying. She tells her that she will be dreaming but we can see that someone is already dreaming. And she says, "There was this man I once knew", and very shortly the rabbit takes a seat in Mr. K.'s office and the Dern character the rabbit seems to create says the same thing.

So, as a theory: All this strange stuff could be Nikki's dream which involved the things she knew about: her character Sue, the Polish story, and some sort of genuine psychic contact with Lost Girl. Then when we see the rabbits' room with fire and candles, and the rabbit taking a seat in the office etc., that could be Lost Girl doing her part of the dreaming.

It would relate to how we see both Dern and Gruszka climbing the same stairs with a screwdriver because those stairs are in Poland, so it makes most sense to see it as Gruszka who climbed them, even though the first time we see it, it is Dern who plays the part in Lost Girl's dream.

Mr. K. is someone who hears and accepts everything that is said no matter how painful. He's like Christ or Buddha, some perfect guru. Lost Girl tries to kill him and fails and winds up Lost because, since he represents the universe or reality, her aggression against it turns out to be against herself ... so she winds up in self-exile from reality, life, etc. So Nikki has to intervene for her by playing the part of Sue who comes to Mr. K. for help.

[MichaelPW]

As far as we know, Sue in OHIBT knows nothing about that. So Nikki would be dreaming about Sue meeting the hookers in her house who show her the street in Poland etc.

Still think that Nikki and/or Sue are not dreaming about the hookers. Think that the hookers at this moment are thoughts. Thoughts that come into Nikki`s mind. When we have a thought we have the fitting expression on Nikki`s face. Nevertheless if Nikki would be dreaming Sue could have access to the knowledge of Nikki. But now I think Nikki dreams from the point where the "surrounding" says "In the future you will be dreaming" and opens her eyes "on the record player" where she sees the familiar one. She will get more information about the familiar one. She will see what was seen in house 40.

But that brings up two things: (1) there is no place for the dream to start so there is no reality to compare it to but itself, and (2) where did the learning to see with the watch and silk come from?

This reminds me on that the dreaming by "Nikki" "will" not be a dream, but a kind of dream. Yes, I don`t know where the learning did come from. And I guess now that the watch is the more important one of the two material means for understanding the movie. I think we have different meanings of watch: On one side it represents life span, on the other side watch could mean "doing something against the bonds of marriage which will lead to consequences". Marriage could be viewed as something holy. Doing something against the idea of marriage could be viewed as something having to do with the soul-collector. And doing so could mean that one has to count with consequences and pay the bill. But did Nikki forget to let the phantom hold her hand for two seconds? Is this the unpaid bill? Why did she forget? Because her son died?

In any case, the basic relationship seems to be between Nikki and Lost Girl.

Yes, I assume this, too. And maybe Nikki is Lost Girl.

Sue seems to be a way for the two of them to communicate.

"Maybe" Nikki plays Sue in OHIBT and maybe Lost Girl played "Sue" in 4 7. Maybe Lost Girl was murdered. Maybe Lost Girl is "reincarnated" in Nikki.

I don't understand it that way yet, but it does seem deliberately put together to say something. I only see parts at this point, which come together in places and then fly apart in others.

Same with me. It`s like a puzzle and human beings would like to say at a given scene "That is so and so, because that is the way how it fits in the whole context". It`s not easy, but that`s the way which makes it interesting. And once one has certain ideas about several scenes one doesn`t want easily to see different interpretations.

It would relate to how we see both Dern and Gruszka climbing the same stairs with a screwdriver because those stairs are in Poland, so it makes most sense to see it as Gruszka who climbed them, even though the first time we see it, it is Dern who plays the part in Lost Girl's dream.

It`s interesting that we see "Nikki" with the screwdriver climbing upstairs, before we see where "Nikki" has the screwdriver from. But what do we see after Lost Girl climbed upstairs? Maybe the hall of a factory? Maybe railway carriages? And who is screaming? Did Lost Girl kill somebody or did she not? Did she something against the bonds of marriage? What is the price? Being locked in 205? Maybe she comes from murdering somebody, meets the phantom, but the phantom already knows and knows who she killed. But - maybe - the woman seen from behind is "Nikki" in an earlier life.

Mr. K is maybe also a watcher about the bonds of marriage. He wants to know if she in fact was seeing other men. But who answers? It seems that there are also prostitutes answering ("I'm a whore"). Paying an unpaid bill? Consequences? But there seems to be "Nikki" somewhere ("I won`t fall in love with you"). Maybe she lost her son and can`t pay the bill. Maybe she forgot to pay it, because she can`t remember it.

[applesnoranges]

Still think that Nikki and/or Sue are not dreaming about the hookers. Think that the hookers at this moment are thoughts. Thoughts that come into Nikki`s mind. When we have a thought we have the fitting expression on Nikki`s face. Nevertheless if Nikki would be dreaming Sue could have access to the knowledge of Nikki.

I agree. Again, sorry for the confusion when I use the word "dream"; I mean the same thing. I mean, "having a view of" etc.

But now I think Nikki dreams from the point where the "surrounding" says "In the future you will be dreaming" and opens her eyes "on the record player" where she sees the familiar one. She will get more information about the familiar one. She will see what was seen in house 40.

It must be all about Nikki alright, but still Nikki's view of Sue, because she is wearing the striped top which is one of Sue's costumes. I don't know if it matters if we see the beginning of a dream there. Does it to you? Does that clarify anything?

This reminds me on that the dreaming by "Nikki" "will" not be a dream, but a kind of dream.

The girl says to her, I think, "In the future you'll be dreaming in a kind of sleep." What is a kind of sleep? And how does she know? I'm going to start a new hypnosis thread to look at another idea.

Yes, I don`t know where the learning did come from. And I guess now that the watch is the more important one of the two material means for understanding the movie. I think we have different meanings of watch: On one side it represents life span, on the other side watch could mean "doing something against the bonds of marriage which will lead to consequences". Marriage could be viewed as something holy. Doing something against the idea of marriage could be viewed as something having to do with the soul-collector. And doing so could mean that one has to count with consequences and pay the bill. But did Nikki forget to let the phantom hold her hand for two seconds? Is this the unpaid bill? Why did she forget? Because her son died?

A couple of things: I've seen this before about the bonds of marriage. But if we assume that the movie talks about that, then it makes David Lynch seem to be selling a certain attitude and I don't think he is. If it turns out that David Lynch thinks we should all think "the bonds of marriage" are real bonds and that there is something "holy" about them, I will be very disappointed and will probably stop watching his movies. Marriage is simply a way of being sure that women never have last names. They are born carrying their father's names, then their fathers "give them away" in marriage so they bear their husbands' names. And in this way nobody can ever know who their female ancestors are, and so women can never inherit property from their female lineage. The whole thing is a cruel hoax to take property away from women to assure male dominance. One of the great tragedies of history. So ... is violation of the bonds of marriage a sin? Or is marriage itself the sin? As understanding as Lynch is of how women view the world, I doubt that he would be trying to push the idea of marriage down our throats. The character of Piotrek lecturing Devon is quite frightening to me. And then there is the buying a watch scene in MTTH where she agrees to let him "look over" her in exchange for a claim of good luck and then finds that she has had her soul taken. When I can, at some time, I'll try to copy down the dialog of this scene, but it is a long scene so, when I can make time.

I don't know if I mentioned this but the meaning of the watch came up last year on the inlandempirecinema.com board and what was said was that through the TM connection, David Lynch has become interested in the ideas of John Haglin, a theoretical physicist who started following the Maharishi (who himself held a PhD in physics). In theoretical physics, there is apparently a term, "the fabric of time". This seems to have something to do with the wearing of the watch and burning a hole through the silk. It reminds me a little of "bending space" in "Dune". As I see it, if that is the connection, the image of the watch and the hole in the silk might be concrete images that come to mind when someone hears "the fabric of time" (which means nothing in common language and is only a special scientific term).

"Maybe" Nikki plays Sue in OHIBT and maybe Lost Girl played "Sue" in 4 7. Maybe Lost Girl was murdered. Maybe Lost Girl is "reincarnated" in Nikki.

That seems to make sense because it is Nikki who changed the story (after she had completed Kingsley's film), and in changing the story, liberated it, so Lost Girl's part in it was liberated too. But I don't yet see how the pieces of it fit. How the Ormand character wound up in Poland for example. I've read that Julia Ormand herself did not travel to Poland for that part of the shooting, and there is no character for her to play in IE as one of Kingsley's actresses who played Doris Side. Those things seem like puzzle pieces close to each other but I don't see how describe them as one thing.

... It`s like a puzzle and human beings would like to say at a given scene "That is so and so, because that is the way how it fits in the whole context". It`s not easy, but that`s the way which makes it interesting. And once one has certain ideas about several scenes one doesn`t want easily to see different interpretations.

That fits with the above. Some things seem right according to what we see and hear and some don't.

It`s interesting that we see "Nikki" with the screwdriver climbing upstairs, before we see where "Nikki" has the screwdriver from.

Our first thought is: "This is how these movies are, they show us something and then later show us what came before, just to be interesting. But in this case it seems that there is more involved than just making things flow in an interesting way.

But what do we see after Lost Girl climbed upstairs? Maybe the hall of a factory? Maybe railway carriages? And who is screaming? Did Lost Girl kill somebody or did she not?

Yes, all that is definitely unclear. That is why I come up with the one clear thing I can see: that Mr. K. is up those stairs and L.G. looks as if she wants to kill someone.

Did she something against the bonds of marriage? What is the price? Being locked in 205? Maybe she comes from murdering somebody, meets the phantom, but the phantom already knows and knows who she killed.

I think murder is a universally acknowledged definitely wrong and sinful thing to do. Sneaking around behind a bad marriage ... I don't think is such a big deal. It is wrong to violate an agreement with someone and lie to them, but ... most people seem to work it out. Murder is a bigger story. Some people say that it was the violation of marriage bonds which led to the murders, but for one thing I don't see how it all fits and for another thing, that, again, makes it seem that David Lynch is preaching about how people have to relate to each other.

But - maybe - the woman seen from behind is "Nikki" in an earlier life.

It is a thought but I can't see where you are going with it. Does that clarify or add to the movie? The clear pairing that we see is between the woman from behind and Sue's husband. Neither can bear children and both say, "I'm not who you think I am! Are you listening to me?" In the "remake" (OHIBT), somehow the roles have been reversed.

Mr. K is maybe also a watcher about the bonds of marriage. He wants to know if she in fact was seeing other men. But who answers?

It seems a logical question to me because she left it unclear why the man was angry with her. It doesn't mean that Mr. K. took sides in what should have happened; he just wanted to know. I don't know what you mean by Who answers?, but this woman seems to have nothing to do with either Nikki or Sue. If I remember right, this is the sequence that began with the rabbit room glowing with candles etc. and Mr. Rabbit vanished and became the Dern monologue woman. I'm not sure why she is saying all this but it seems to be just an outpouring of pain. Mr. K. never gets upset, he just does the best thing anyone could do: he listens. Maybe nobody else in the story is listening to what anybody else says, but Mr. K. listens. I think his question indicates that he was listening and interested. Anyway, it must be Lost Girl who answers because it is her rabbit who became the woman making the confession.

Maybe in 4 7 LG went upstairs and tried to kill Mr. K., blaming him for the bad marriage to the phantom which took her soul. But this was a mistake; it was not Mr. K's fault. So then to save her, the rabbits give her another chance by sending the Dern character to Mr. K. to plead her case. This time she is more respectful.

It seems that there are also prostitutes answering ("I'm a whore"). Paying an unpaid bill? Consequences? But there seems to be "Nikki" somewhere ("I won`t fall in love with you"). Maybe she lost her son and can`t pay the bill. Maybe she forgot to pay it, because she can`t remember it.

I don't know about the other parts but the prostitutes don't seem to be paying an unpaid bill to me. They seem happy enough as they are, even though we can see that they may not be the most fully realized human beings.

[MichaelPW]

It must be all about Nikki alright, but still Nikki's view of Sue, because she is wearing the striped top which is one of Sue's costumes.

Where do you know from that the striped top is one of Sue`s costumes?

I don't know if it matters if we see the beginning of a dream there. Does it to you? Does that clarify anything?

We probably know from this information that she wasn`t dreaming so far and we know that she will meet a familiar one.

What is a kind of sleep? And how does she know?

In the philosophy of buddhism I think it is a question of different levels of consciousness. Sleep is a deep level and death is the deepest level. So kind of sleep probably means a deep consciousness level. I don`t know how she knows, but it feels as if it is the truth.

But if we assume that the movie talks about that, then it makes David Lynch seem to be selling a certain attitude and I don't think he is.

As far as I know David Lynch wants to show how reality is with his movies. And there are certainly people who believe in marriage.

If it turns out that David Lynch thinks we should all think "the bonds of marriage" are real bonds and that there is something "holy" about them, I will be very disappointed and will probably stop watching his movies.

I don`t think that David Lynch thinks that we should all think something. But I guess when people say "Yes" on a marriage they mean yes. So we have here an interestingly agreement of meaning and saying and listening. But sometimes - maybe - there isn`t such a correspondence. And meaning, saying and listening are different things. Like in the "two-seconds-scene".

Marriage is simply a way of being sure that women never have last names.

I don`t see it so negatively. And in Germany there is the possibilty that women can behold their last names.

And in this way nobody can ever know who their female ancestors are, and so women can never inherit property from their female lineage.

Don`t know how it is in California, but in Germany there often is "born as ...". And all is recorded for a long time.

The whole thing is a cruel hoax to take property away from women to assure male dominance.

Maybe it is a positively meant thing from church. For some people it has apparently advantages and for other people disadvantages - independent from gender. In some way it can be a perverse expression of selection (as we maybe can see in MD).

Think that David Lynch shows how the world emotionally can be (from different points of view).

In theoretical physics, there is apparently a term, "the fabric of time".

Do you know something more about this? For me it seems that it is often difficult to understand what theoretical physics mean. Not a long time ago I "read" an article about "muli-universes" which suggested that there are not only one universes, but very much equal universes (meaning that you are reading now and that there are millions of other universes in which you are reading now, too). I didn`t understand how they could come to such conclusions.

That seems to make sense because it is Nikki who changed the story (after she had completed Kingsley's film), and in changing the story, liberated it, so Lost Girl's part in it was liberated too.

Can we be sure that Kingsley`s film ended with the death of Sue? And can we be sure that there is a murder in Kingsley`s movie?

That is why I come up with the one clear thing I can see: that Mr. K. is up those stairs and L.G. looks as if she wants to kill someone.

Yes, and the question that comes into my mind is "Where got Lost Girl the screwdriver from - also from the near of the phantom?" So maybe there was a Visitor 2 for Lost Girl, too.

Does that clarify or add to the movie?

It depends on who that woman is. But we are asked who she is. Why? Maybe it is a variable. Different persons will lead to different understandings and interpretations of the movie.

In the "remake" (OHIBT), somehow the roles have been reversed.

Yes, it seems so!

It seems a logical question to me because she left it unclear why the man was angry with her. It doesn't mean that Mr. K. took sides in what should have happened; he just wanted to know.

But it is the only question he has in the whole monologue. And I think there are more things she left unclear. So why wanted he know only this and not all the other things he maybe would like to know? Yes, I don`t think that he didn`t take side in what should have happened - but he wanted to know the facts.

The answer could be the answer of one of the street girls.

Mr. K. never gets upset, he just does the best thing anyone could do: he listens. Maybe nobody else in the story is listening to what anybody else says, but Mr. K. listens.

Sometimes I think he looks as if he already knows about the sufferings of human beings. Yes, he listens. And the husband of Nikki listens to Devon.

[applesnoranges]

Where do you know from that the striped top is one of Sue`s costumes?

In the next part, in the day, when she is burning the hole. Then leaning against the wall in bright light. Also when washing dishes. (Is that in MTTH?).

In the philosophy of buddhism I think it is a question of different levels of consciousness. Sleep is a deep level and death is the deepest level. So kind of sleep probably means a deep consciousness level. I don`t know how she knows, but it feels as if it is the truth.

OK, yes, what she says sounds familiar. People have said that before, that in death someone familiar is there (e.g. Laura Palmer for Leland).

But if we assume that the movie talks about that, then it makes David Lynch seem to be selling a certain attitude and I don't think he is.

As far as I know David Lynch wants to show how reality is with his movies. And there are certainly people who believe in marriage.

I'll try to clarify the whole thing about marriage here. Visitor #1 asks if the film is about marriage and she says, "Yes in some ways but...."

My comments were not about anyone's particular marriage, and yes, everywhere since the 1970s things have changed so that many women retain their "born as" names. But those names are still only the names of their fathers. I am talking about the whole historical meaning of this. It appears that before this happened, women were the heads of their families because everyone always knows who someone's mother is. Male guardians of children could be anyone; often her brothers. (Why there are so many uncles in old stories about fabled, mythical pasts.)

There are different kinds of marriages in reality. The "buying a watch" scene seems to me to be clearly about a bad kind of marriage. She gives up her will to him because she feels weak and helpless and wants someone to save her. Where we see the result of this is in the troubled relationship between Sue and her husband. At the end, when the problem has been solved, we see a good marriage between two happy people who have willingly chosen to be partners.

I don`t see it so negatively. And in Germany there is the possibilty that women can behold their last names.

But I'll bet this is the same everywhere: I know the birth names of some of my great-grandmothers because I can search back that far and no farther. It would be so difficult to trace back a biological history of female ancestors that we may as well call it impossible.

Don`t know how it is in California, but in Germany there often is "born as ...". And all is recorded for a long time.

Can you discover more than three generations? There is a guy in what is supposedly my family who traced back "the name" to the ninth century. But that is only a history of the men whose names were given to women. Women, in fact, actually have no names at all except first names.

Maybe it is a positively meant thing from church. For some people it has apparently advantages and for other people disadvantages - independent from gender. In some way it can be a perverse expression of selection (as we maybe can see in MD).

Well, sure, there has been the good intention of being sure that children are properly cared for and supported. That part goes back to the beginning a couple thousand years ago. When paternity was discovered, then male responsibility was understood; that's a good thing. But the system that was put in place had the consequence preventing female inheritance. I mean in broad history; of course the difficulty was seen in more recent time and structures were put in place that permitted this.

Think that David Lynch shows how the world emotionally can be (from different points of view).

I agree. That is why I think that the buying a watch scene was made as a counter balance to all the trauma seen otherwise from "adultery" Many people have relationships outside of marriage with permission from their partners. I think he is just showing how life can become troubled.

In theoretical physics, there is apparently a term, "the fabric of time".

I only know the surface of it from popular shows. I used to listen to a weekly radio show by a theoretical physicist named Michio Kaku ( http://mkaku.org/ ). I think the idea of multiple universes is pretty widely accepted in modern physics. There were once some videos by Lynch and Hagelin partly about this on David Lynch's TM site ( http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ ), I don't know if now. More from a TM point of view on Hagelin's site: ( http://www.hagelin.org/ ) I don't understand it but I think it is current thought in physics except that some other physicists think that Hagelin himself, who created a well respected "theory of everything" has gone off the deep end since involvement with TM. He runs the Maharishi University now. I don't know what to think. But yes, I'm pretty sure that David Lynch holds that innumerable universes exist in the same "place" and we are only experiencing one of them except once in a while we get glimpses of others. So Lost Girl and Nikki and Sue could be from different ones and the hole in the silk is a way to seeing into another one.

At the risk of going off topic (I'll say a little more about this later), I've just read "His Dark Materials", a trilogy of children's books by Philip Pullman that began with "The Golden Compass" (as in the movie). Multiple universes is what that story is all about.

Can we be sure that Kingsley`s film ended with the death of Sue? And can we be sure that there is a murder in Kingsley`s movie?

I don't know; I only meant to identify which part of the movie I was talking about when I said that. It kind of seems that way to me because there he is directing, calling her Nikki again. Though he thinks there is something wrong with her. In this part, she is no longer under his direction and has her own tasks. Some people say that this is because we are seeing what Sue sees after her death, that she is an actress named Nikki who played the part of her life.

Yes, and the question that comes into my mind is "Where got Lost Girl the screwdriver from - also from the near of the phantom?" So maybe there was a Visitor 2 for Lost Girl, too.

Say! I never thought of that! Now where did that screwdriver come from? That's kind of strange alright.

Does that clarify or add to the movie?

It depends on who that woman is. But we are asked who she is. Why? Maybe it is a variable. Different persons will lead to different understandings and interpretations of the movie.

Yes, I don't see any way to know, not yet anyway. As we've said before though, some solutions seem to feel better than others. At present I think the question is asked and her back is turned just to point out that she is not identified.

It seems a logical question to me because she left it unclear why the man was angry with her. It doesn't mean that Mr. K. took sides in what should have happened; he just wanted to know.

But it is the only question he has in the whole monologue. And I think there are more things she left unclear. So why wanted he know only this and not all the other things he maybe would like to know? Yes, I don`t think that he didn`t take side in what should have happened - but he wanted to know the facts.

Well, actually, what passes through my mind each time I hear that is that it provides her with a way to get onto another topic (the guy who told her stories). Yes, he says that and in MTTH he says that he likes pancakes. I don't know. Anyway, she doesn't give him much of an answer and doesn't seem to care much about the question. Maybe it is to show that by this time she is completely outside of the moral framework that holds everyone else together, a completely asocial person.

Sometimes I think he looks as if he already knows about the sufferings of human beings. Yes, he listens. And the husband of Nikki listens to Devon.

That seems very different to me. Piotrek threatens about actions and consequences; Mr. K. does not.

[MichaelPW]

Also when washing dishes.

Think that we have that costume the first time when she opens her eyes to see the street. So it could belong to Nikki. The washing dishes scene seems to belong to the "Nikki`s confession scene / chapter". And we really have a chapter called "Nikki`s confession", haven`t we?

But those names are still only the names of their fathers. I am talking about the whole historical meaning of this.

I guess that there`s a general "problem" with names. Some "only" exist since a few hundred years.

But I'll bet this is the same everywhere: I know the birth names of some of my great-grandmothers because I can search back that far and no farther. It would be so difficult to trace back a biological history of female ancestors that we may as well call it impossible.

Another "problem" is that recorded history may contain errors. But in cases in which recorded history and reality are the same, someone doesn`t know how it would have been to interact with the ancestor. Maybe one could be in the position to have recordings how the ancestor lived and what the ancestor thought. But this doesn`t answer the question how the ancestor would behave toward that someone.

There is a guy in what is supposedly my family who traced back "the name" to the ninth century.

That`s far! I traced back to the nineteenth century.

But the system that was put in place had the consequence preventing female inheritance.

That`s right for the recorded female inheritance. But, of course, this has no meaning for biological female inheritance. It is/was there as male inheritance is/was. Nature selects a combination of "male" and "female" parts.

I used to listen to a weekly radio show by a theoretical physicist named Michio Kaku ( http://mkaku.org/ ). I think the idea of multiple universes is pretty widely accepted in modern physics.

Thank you very much for this link! The books of Michio Kaku seem to promise a better understandable understanding of such physical matters. Will keep these in mind!

Multiple universes is what that story is all about.

Don`t know it, but when it is for children I can imagine that there`s the possibilty for a better understanding, too. It seems that these physicists are concluding from the move of particles.

At present I think the question is asked and her back is turned just to point out that she is not identified.

We are asked, then we see a dead body and we are also asked about this dead body. Of course we do not know, whether there was a murder around 4 7. Maybe the dead bodies that we see are just ideas or wishes. But we only see the dead female body when we are asked. Maybe the wife seen from behind killed the two actors of 4 7. She seems to be decided, repeating "Never" very clearly. So "Piotrek" here would be in the position of Nikki in OHIBT. Lost Girl - as a possible actor of 4 7 - could be in the position of Devon in OHIBT. "The phantom" - as a possible husband of Lost Girl - could be in the position of "Doris" in OHIBT. But what happens if the roles get exchanged? Would the phantom understand? Or would it hypnotize itself (=Doris with the screwdriver in herself)?

Yes, he says that and in MTTH he says that he likes pancakes. I don't know.

He also has a means for working with dough. So maybe he is forming existences. Maybe the rabbit is a prototype. But the means how the rabbit came to Mr. K is magic. And maybe this wasn`t without problems, because the "rabbit office" seem to burn a little bit.

[applesnoranges]

Think that we have that costume the first time when she opens her eyes to see the street. So it could belong to Nikki. The washing dishes scene seems to belong to the "Nikki`s confession scene / chapter". And we really have a chapter called "Nikki`s confession", haven`t we?

I think the first time we see the costume is after the flashing lamp and she is in the room with all the street girls and flashlights. Then they tell her she will be dreaming etc. But this seems to be no longer Nikki at all; she is very distressed, half crazy. Then they tell her about opening her eyes and she is on the street in Poland doing that. Then she is wearing that again seen with sunlight on her in her apartment again when the girls snap and sing the Locomotion song. These are all parts of the Sue story. There is one scene earlier of Nikki and Devon waiting to film where she is in her blue robe and she seems to be made up for that distressed scene; that's how her face looks. I can't see if that top is under the robe or not but it might be. Anyway, it is a costume associated with Sue's life, not Nikki's.

Do you mean that in your version the chapters have titles? There are chapter stops in this one but not with titles and an index.

I guess that there`s a general "problem" with names. Some "only" exist since a few hundred years.

Yes, all that is true, but my point within the movie is that I don't see it as a kind of propaganda for a point of what is the right and wrong way for anyone to act because of marriage. In a ceremony, even today, some man has to be there to "give away" the bride. Someone from her family has to "give" this property to its new owner. Nobody has to give him to her because he is regarded as a real person and not just an animal to be bought and sold. So it could be seen that marriage, in a way, is a sort of crime against humanity. Nowadays in theory only, but it is still an abusive thing to have to pretend.

Thank you very much for this link! The books of Michio Kaku seem to promise a better understandable understanding of such physical matters. Will keep these in mind!

He considers all this stuff which seems very strange to us but he is very well connected with what other scientists are doing and thinking. A major part of his life's work is to relate to ordinary people what scientists are thinking, somewhat like Carl Sagan did.

Don`t know it, but when it is for children I can imagine that there`s the possibilty for a better understanding, too. It seems that these physicists are concluding from the move of particles.

I heard an interview with him where he said, "I don't write children's books; I write books that children read." It's pretty much up to date with the stuff I've heard from Kaku. There is a scientist in the story too so that is a way for this stuff to be discussed along with all the magical stuff.

We are asked, then we see a dead body and we are also asked about this dead body. Of course we do not know, whether there was a murder around 4 7. Maybe the dead bodies that we see are just ideas or wishes. But we only see the dead female body when we are asked. Maybe the wife seen from behind killed the two actors of 4 7. She seems to be decided, repeating "Never" very clearly. So "Piotrek" here would be in the position of Nikki in OHIBT. Lost Girl - as a possible actor of 4 7 - could be in the position of Devon in OHIBT. "The phantom" - as a possible husband of Lost Girl - could be in the position of "Doris" in OHIBT. But what happens if the roles get exchanged? Would the phantom understand? Or would it hypnotize itself (=Doris with the screwdriver in herself)?

It seems that things are reversed here in a number of ways, but looking at motives and intentions, the woman with her back turned seems to me to be the one with the heart of a killer and so does the Majchrzak character. The confusion comes because I think most people think that both she and the corpse are played by Julia Ormand (though I've also seen the objection that Julia Ormand herself did not travel to Poland for filming, or so it is said.) So when we are asked, "Who is she?", I don't think we can know. As you say, ideas or wishes. The corpse is not dressed like anyone else in the Polish part and seems to be in an undefined environment. (btw: she is dressed in black, maybe as for a funeral. In MTTH there is also a brief scene unrelated to the others, showing Justin Theroux playing a corpse and he is also dressed in black, in a suit like when he went to dinner at Nikki and Piotrek's place. The environment is dark and somewhat industrial, like in the scenes where he is running around on the set trying to check out the noise.) Another thing to add here is that this time I noticed that when the Gruszka character is being beaten, she is wearing something decorated with sequins and a little fur or feather boa; seems like a street walker's outfit.

Yes, he says that and in MTTH he says that he likes pancakes. I don't know.

He also has a means for working with dough. So maybe he is forming existences. Maybe the rabbit is a prototype. But the means how the rabbit came to Mr. K is magic. And maybe this wasn`t without problems, because the "rabbit office" seem to burn a little bit.

None of that comes to my mind from what he said. It's as if Dern suddenly realized that all this time she has been talking to someone who is completely out of his mind. But then she settles back and continues. What comes across to me eventually is that he was just making a friendly comment to her. He is a being from beyond our understanding who understands her pain and pleasure but is not involved in it.

But ... well, maybe someone burned the pancakes in the rabbit room!

[MichaelPW]

I think the first time we see the costume is after the flashing lamp and she is in the room with all the street girls and flashlights. Then they tell her she will be dreaming etc.

It seems that we can only see her face in the room. She came in it with a green costume. But on the street we can see the one with different colours.

These are all parts of the Sue story.

Think that it is about Nikki. She sees that there isn`t only Devon, but other men she have chances on.

There is one scene earlier of Nikki and Devon waiting to film where she is in her blue robe and she seems to be made up for that distressed scene; that's how her face looks. I can't see if that top is under the robe or not but it might be.

The last times I watched IE I always asked me if this scene is before a sex-scene. Devon`s costume wouldn`t fit perhaps. But the husband of Nikki maybe would such a scene as something against the bonds of marriage.

Do you mean that in your version the chapters have titles? There are chapter stops in this one but not with titles and an index.

Yes, there are titles! Haven`t paid much attention to them in the past, but now I will note them:
1.) Theatre performance
2.) Visit of the neighbour (Begins with the tree.)
3.) Begin of the shooting-work (Begins with the Hollywood-sign.)
4.) First shooting-day (Begins with Devon Looking who is in the background.)
5.) Nearing between Nikki and Devon (Begins with "Where is everyone gone?")
6.) Begin of Nikki`s loss of reality (Begins with "Sounds like a dialogue of our script"-scene.)
7.) Meeting with lovers (Begins with Nikki leaving Smithie`s house to wonder why it is suddenly real)
8.) Confession (Begins with Nikki (?) making scrambled eggs; yellow top.)
9.) Nikki is pregnant (Begins with "Hole is already in the silk"-scene, (if it is already in.))
10.) Barbecue (Begins with "Look at me!".)
11.) Quarrel between Nikki and Devon (Begins with girls listening to music.)
12.) The invisible maid (Begins with "Driving into the woods"-scene.)
13.) In the red-light-environment (Begins with "Men becoming rabbits"-scene)
14.) Attempted murder on Nikki (Begins with "Exit".)
15.) Nikki`s death (Begins with "Dying on the street"-scene)
16.) In the labyrinth (Begins with Kingsley looking to Nikki.)
17.) Door number 47 (Begins with Nikki looking to room 4 7.)

Yes, all that is true, but my point within the movie is that I don't see it as a kind of propaganda for a point of what is the right and wrong way for anyone to act because of marriage.

I don`t see it as a kind of propaganda for a point of what is the right and wrong way for anyone to act because of marriage, as well. Think that IE represents emotional realities.

In a ceremony, even today, some man has to be there to "give away" the bride.

Probably this is often seen in a romantic way. The "strong gender" has to take care about the "beautiful gender". But I don`t like this property-thing very much. Sometimes people say "My husband" or "My wife". An illusion far away from reality.

A major part of his life's work is to relate to ordinary people what scientists are thinking, somewhat like Carl Sagan did.

In what science-area Carlan Sagan did it?

Another thing to add here is that this time I noticed that when the Gruszka character is being beaten, she is wearing something decorated with sequins and a little fur or feather boa; seems like a street walker's outfit.

Evidence for a prostitute-relationship.

None of that comes to my mind from what he said.

But I wonder what the dough-roll mean...

[applesnoranges]

I think the first time we see the costume is after the flashing lamp and she is in the room with all the street girls and flashlights. Then they tell her she will be dreaming etc.

It seems that we can only see her face in the room. She came in it with a green costume. But on the street we can see the one with different colours.

We see that outfit in the very first shot; from then on we see only her face. We see her in there in a number of outfits, but I mean in this sequence which begins with the women shining a flashlight on her. That's where we first see her in the striped top and then also later at other times when she is with them. That change of costume comes with a complete change of character; he is suddenly seen as deranged and emotional ruined.

These are all parts of the Sue story.

Think that it is about Nikki. She sees that there isn`t only Devon, but other men she have chances on.

I guess it is always possible to see Sue as being played by Nikki, but the focus on the person with the street hookers is a focus on Sue. Sue is the person who is in Smithy's house. In Nikki's world, Smithy's house is only a front with no back, the one Devon found. The person screaming, "Billy!" was Sue.

The last times I watched IE I always asked me if this scene is before a sex-scene. Devon`s costume wouldn`t fit perhaps. But the husband of Nikki maybe would such a scene as something against the bonds of marriage.

She looks emotionally ruined, like Sue looks in the room with flashlights.

Yes, there are titles! Haven`t paid much attention to them in the past, but now I will note them:
1.) Theatre performance
2.) Visit of the neighbour (Begins with the tree.)
3.) Begin of the shooting-work (Begins with the Hollywood-sign.)
4.) First shooting-day (Begins with Devon Looking who is in the background.)
5.) Nearing between Nikki and Devon (Begins with "Where is everyone gone?")
6.) Begin of Nikki`s loss of reality (Begins with "Sounds like a dialogue of our script"-scene.)
7.) Meeting with lovers (Begins with Nikki leaving Smithie`s house to wonder why it is suddenly real)
8.) Confession (Begins with Nikki (?) making scrambled eggs; yellow top.)
9.) Nikki is pregnant (Begins with "Hole is already in the silk"-scene, (if it is already in.))
10.) Barbecue (Begins with "Look at me!".)
11.) Quarrel between Nikki and Devon (Begins with girls listening to music.)
12.) The invisible maid (Begins with "Driving into the woods"-scene.)
13.) In the red-light-environment (Begins with "Men becoming rabbits"-scene)
14.) Attempted murder on Nikki (Begins with "Exit".)
15.) Nikki`s death (Begins with "Dying on the street"-scene)
16.) In the labyrinth (Begins with Kingsley looking to Nikki.)
17.) Door number 47 (Begins with Nikki looking to room 4 7.)

Thanks for that! However, now that I see them, I don't agree with them! I think when the movie was released everyone had to guess what to say about the scenes to make these versions. But as we now see, we are still trying to figure it out.

I don`t see it as a kind of propaganda for a point of what is the right and wrong way for anyone to act because of marriage, as well. Think that IE represents emotional realities.

OK, yes.

In what science-area Carlan Sagan did it?

I don't know much about him except that he made TV programs and wrote books addressed to the public. I think mostly an astronomer.

Evidence for a prostitute-relationship.

Yes, and it's confusing because on the street he talks like a jealous husband, personally hurt and angry.

But I wonder what the dough-roll mean...

I don't think it means anything. It just draws us back to the situation of her talking to him. She talks a lot about ice cream in that sequence too so he could have said somewhere that he likes ice cream and it would come out the same as I see it. I hope you can get to see this; that sequence is really way too long to write out. It is a long, long story about her present life living on the back porch of her sister and her sister's husband and everything she doesn't like about it.

[MichaelPW]

I guess it is always possible to see Sue as being played by Nikki, but the focus on the person with the street hookers is a focus on Sue. Sue is the person who is in Smithy's house. In Nikki's world, Smithy's house is only a front with no back, the one Devon found. The person screaming, "Billy!" was Sue.

As I wrote before I assume that IE is primarily a movie about Nikki (not Sue). Nikki becomes more and more the role of OHIBT. But it`s Nikki, not Sue - like she says "It`s me, Devon, It`s me Nikki". Sex is a deep level of consciousness - so she says it more direct there. When she is screaming on the less-deep-level-of-consciousness set she is also less direct. She means "Devon!", but screams "Billy!". She can`t allow her screaming "Billy"! on the set, Kingsley wouldn`t allow her that. There is the mental presence of her husband. She wants to prevent the curse (=the roles becoming reality). She wants to prevent Devon running into the trap. But the curse already works - Devon isn`t aware of the mental presence of her husband.

She recognizes that Devon doesn`t hear her. So she tries another preventing-method. She enters Smithie`s house. Also this method doesn`t prevent Devon looking for someone. A someone who disappeared although it is impossible to disappear. The "there was this whole memory rising up" scene still continues. What memory is it? A memory that someone has when someone is dying (=being in the near of the access to oneself)? What kind of memory is it (what kind of access is it)? It`s a deep level of consciousness. Where we have more unity. Here Nikki sees what experiences Devon had what hurts her. But the memory doesn`t stop here. It goes deeper and deeper and deeper. She sees the street and gets the offer to see even further and further. There is more and more unity. There is more and more familiarity.

She looks emotionally ruined, like Sue looks in the room with flashlights.

She carries blue. The burden of hard life. Maybe she lost her son. Something is wrong with the making of OHIBT and with Devon. Badly wrong.

However, now that I see them, I don't agree with them! I think when the movie was released everyone had to guess what to say about the scenes to make these versions.

I can`t imagine that David Lynch would allow to invent chapter names without saying "Yes" to them. Also not when it is about a version in far away Germany. So for me they are more evidence that the movie is mainly about Nikki. Especially I agree with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15.

Yes, and it's confusing because on the street he talks like a jealous husband, personally hurt and angry.

Think that this on the street scene is congruent with a prostitute-relationship. He`s somewhat neurotic like in the beating-scene. I don`t see him as a jealous husband, personally hurt and angry. He philosophies about ways. Ways a prostitute relationship maybe doesn`t offer. And it`s "delicate" that he knows who was murdered. She will know when coincidence led to the meeting of two "customers".

I don't think it means anything.

I assume that it means something. If not intended - then unintended.

I hope you can get to see this; that sequence is really way too long to write out.

Thank you for hoping that. Probably I will.

[applesnoranges]

As I wrote before I assume that IE is primarily a movie about Nikki (not Sue).

OK, I see now why I wasn't understanding you. I've seen versions of the story from the idea that Sue is real and only imagined Nikki to deny her debt for what she did wrong. (But I think ultimately these stories can't completely describe everything we see.) But I have never seen a whole description of the movie as about Nikki.

Anyway, when I have said that we are seeing Nikki or Sue somewhere, what I mean is that it is the character portrayed, not a final statement about who is within whom. That is, Nikki and Sue have different worlds, different personalities, different surroundings, etc. As characters. So when I say that the striped top is Sue's costume, I mean it belongs to that character and is part of that character's world.

Nikki becomes more and more the role of OHIBT. But it`s Nikki, not Sue - like she says "It`s me, Devon, It`s me Nikki". Sex is a deep level of consciousness - so she says it more direct there.

The other way of seeing that (and I am not attached to either; I just see that both ways are made possible in the movie), is that it is really Billy and Sue and that because of her guilt she starts at that point to imagine that she is an actress named Nikki playing her part. That's why Billy keeps calling her Sue and saying that she's not making any sense.

When she is screaming on the less-deep-level-of-consciousness set she is also less direct. She means "Devon!", but screams "Billy!". She can`t allow her screaming "Billy"! on the set, Kingsley wouldn`t allow her that. There is the mental presence of her husband. She wants to prevent the curse (=the roles becoming reality). She wants to prevent Devon running into the trap. But the curse already works - Devon isn`t aware of the mental presence of her husband.

Aha! OK, I see what you mean. But then there is the question of how she got to that point. The alley where she is walking with the groceries seems to be the same one that Devon looked down in back of the false front of Smithy's house (except the street in Poland is not at the end of it). Just before that, in the sex scene, she said it was a scene from the movie that he wasn't in. If that is so, then it was Sue carrying groceries for Billy, like she said in the sex scene. But then something happens when she sees the Axxon n sign.

She recognizes that Devon doesn`t hear her. So she tries another preventing-method. She enters Smithie`s house. Also this method doesn`t prevent Devon looking for someone. A someone who disappeared although it is impossible to disappear.

If we try to find a natural explanation for this, then her entering Smithie's house would have to be imagined or a delusion. But when she first enters, she doesn't seem to be aware of where she is an goes around investigating. It's like the scene where Alice first walks through the Looking Glass.

The "there was this whole memory rising up" scene still continues. What memory is it? A memory that someone has when someone is dying (=being in the near of the access to oneself)? What kind of memory is it (what kind of access is it)? It`s a deep level of consciousness. Where we have more unity. Here Nikki sees what experiences Devon had what hurts her. But the memory doesn`t stop here. It goes deeper and deeper and deeper. She sees the street and gets the offer to see even further and further. There is more and more unity. There is more and more familiarity.

Yes, that describes it, but following that line of thought leads to the idea that it is Sue who is doing the remembering. She seems to be going back and forth here, from the sex scene on, between Nikki and Sue. When she sees Devon in the window, the window flashes back and forth a couple of times between the daylight of the front yard and the darkness of the studio interior with Devon looking in.

I can`t imagine that David Lynch would allow to invent chapter names without saying "Yes" to them.

I agree with MysteryMan here that Lynch can't be everywhere at once, approving every detail in every movie. The French subtitles are definitely wrong in that one place in the North American release.

Also not when it is about a version in far away Germany. So for me they are more evidence that the movie is mainly about Nikki. Especially I agree with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15.

Well once something is there it is there for something like that. But not for the French error.

Think that this on the street scene is congruent with a prostitute-relationship. He`s somewhat neurotic like in the beating-scene. I don`t see him as a jealous husband, personally hurt and angry. He philosophies about ways. Ways a prostitute relationship maybe doesn`t offer. And it`s "delicate" that he knows who was murdered. She will know when coincidence led to the meeting of two "customers".

I just mean how intense his feeling is. But yes, that could be for different reasons.

I don't think it means anything.

I assume that it means something. If not intended - then unintended.

I like the idea that it doesn't mean anything, nothing to do with baked goods anyway. She says "I like ice cream." and he is not shocked, he just listens to what she says, but when he says he likes pancakes, she is completely shocked. You have to see the look on her face!

[MichaelPW]

I wonder now why Piotrek Krol is named Piotrek Krol and not Piotrek Grace. And the two older persons seem to be "Zydowics" (so maybe they could play the parents of the director of the Polish part as you maybe already mentioned).

Think that Janus could have two faces like the mythological one. One helping Piotrek and one helping the phantom.

The woman of Billy could be the real woman of Devon. They are called Billy, Sue and Mrs. Berk in the corresponding scene. But they are Devon, Nikki and maybe Mrs. wife of Devon.

A Polish woman told me now that Lodz is a really filthy place.

[applesnoranges]

I wonder now why Piotrek Krol is named Piotrek Krol and not Piotrek Grace. And the two older persons seem to be "Zydowics" (so maybe they could play the parents of the director of the Polish part as you maybe already mentioned).

I think it is just a carousel of names to draw attention to the fact that at some point around the circle it touches our own world, the world in which there is a real Marek Zydowics.

Think that Janus could have two faces like the mythological one. One helping Piotrek and one helping the phantom.

I don't see anything to make me think Janek wants to help the phantom.

The woman of Billy could be the real woman of Devon. They are called Billy, Sue and Mrs. Berk in the corresponding scene. But they are Devon, Nikki and maybe Mrs. wife of Devon.

The only Berk I remember is Mr. Berk. The headwaiter calls Devon that. He is portrayed as a Hollywood playboy and doesn't seem to have a wife. The way his team talks to him, they talk about his adventures and misadventures and they warn him about Piotrek. If he had a wife, they would talk about her too.

A Polish woman told me now that Lodz is a really filthy place.

Maybe what Lynch liked about it!

[MichaelPW]

I think it is just a carousel of names to draw attention to the fact that at some point around the circle it touches our own world, the world in which there is a real Marek Zydowics.

I think it has something to do with 4 7. That Mr. and Mrs. Zydowics especially have something to do with it. Maybe they are the producers of 4 7 and Piotrek Król - as the mightiest man of the town - introduces them to her.

I don't see anything to make me think Janek wants to help the phantom.

It seems that the phantom is convinced that Janek is the only one to let the phantom play a role. Assuming that it is so and assuming that the phantom play a role in the following time, one can conclude that Janek let him play a role. And I think that the phantom plays a role in the following time.

The only Berk I remember is Mr. Berk. The headwaiter calls Devon that. He is portrayed as a Hollywood playboy and doesn't seem to have a wife. The way his team talks to him, they talk about his adventures and misadventures and they warn him about Piotrek. If he had a wife, they would talk about her too.

That`s true if we take these scenes as really happening. Probably Doris is "just" another woman the phantom hypnotized (took as wife).

Maybe what Lynch liked about it!

Yes! It reminded me on the monologue.


In the meantime I think about whether "Axxon N." means alley. I think now that Nikki is murdered (or that it was attempted) when she walks in in that scene and we have the white light. The moment of the white light could be her death. She follows the way to the palace. Certainly this scene - as we see it - was not planned in that way for OHIBT. OHIBT seems to be a really schematic movie. The way we see it I think is the way how Nikki thinks about/in this scene.

[applesnoranges]

I think it has something to do with 4 7. That Mr. and Mrs. Zydowics especially have something to do with it. Maybe they are the producers of 4 7 and Piotrek Król - as the mightiest man of the town - introduces them to her.

Then (1) why are they called Zydowicz and not some other name? The name clearly points to Marek Zydowicz. And (2) it is a thought which is "thinkable" but why would one think this? In other words, what is the story which would follow?

It seems that the phantom is convinced that Janek is the only one to let the phantom play a role. Assuming that it is so and assuming that the phantom play a role in the following time, one can conclude that Janek let him play a role. And I think that the phantom plays a role in the following time.

The phantom does play a role by causing pain and sorrow. So (1) why would Janek do that? And (2) how does that fit with Janek's attempts to get rid of him?

That`s true if we take these scenes as really happening. Probably Doris is "just" another woman the phantom hypnotized (took as wife).

As in the buying a watch, she could be one of the many others who bought them? But in the script of OHIBT which Nikki and Devon play, she says, "You got a wife and two kids." That is how the script Kingsley gave them was written. btw: I wondered for a long time what happened to the other kid? Sue sees only one being tended by the doctor. So I thought that there must be another child who was killed. But that didn't seem to go anywhere so since then I've been thinking that Sue just walks into a different version of the story in which there is only one child. On one hand, her memories of the OHIBT story seem to be psychotic delusion and she walks into a reality situation which has nothing to do with it, but on the other hand, the "reality" situation doesn't seem real at all. It all looks like a soap opera. So I guess neither story is "true". It seems to me that almost all the scenes in the movie come from the main characters played by Dern and Gruszka but this home scene comes from Doris. Yet, the idea that there is no Doris seems to fit with what you say.

In the meantime I think about whether "Axxon N." means alley. I think now that Nikki is murdered (or that it was attempted) when she walks in in that scene and we have the white light. The moment of the white light could be her death. She follows the way to the palace. Certainly this scene - as we see it - was not planned in that way for OHIBT. OHIBT seems to be a really schematic movie. The way we see it I think is the way how Nikki thinks about/in this scene.

That would explain what happened afterward. But how did she come to see the Axxon n sign? It doesn't seem to be part of the OHIBT script so it could be something that the phantom as Devon/Billy in bed with her caused, yet she says it was a scene that happened yesterday but she knows it's tomorrow. At that point Devon/Billy/Phantom seems very pleased with his conquest and proceeds as in a rape as she becomes more and more helpless and fearful like woman #1 at the beginning. Maybe you are right but there is no way to untangle the confused time sequence. "What time is it?" indeed!