applesnoranges wrote:Maybe it is a matter of what we want to see the movie do. Each time it is spun around more things appear and that is wonderful.
I don`t know how it was possible to realize IE, but have a feeling that it could be possible to see it as a finished cut brilliant one day. Brilliant puzzle pieces are already seen. Important borders are transcended - time, space, physics, death, reality, fiction, religion. Sometimes the transcendations seem to be flowing, sometimes they seem to be more cutting. Maybe the rabbits can be viewed as a kind of model from which humans could learn.
But I also think that the mystery of who killed whom can be solved because that is what the curse is about, the two dead leads.
Interestingly features of a curse are repetition and the exclusion of laws of physics. With regard to such laws it would be possible without problems to realize a movie like OHIBT. But the curse makes it impossible. The rabbits seem to have a cure against that curse: magic. Maybe Mr. K talks about the solution of the curse, when he says: "I think it will not last much longer now." The rabbits know where curses come from: When a little boy goes out to play and when there is a reflection. It seems that "Piotrek" goes out in Poland. The rabbits know when there will be no curse: When a little girl goes out...behind the marketplace. It seems that Nikki is the right person to solve the problem. We do not really know what the curse is. Could be infertility, could be the increasing wish to kill. Kingsley says that they discovered something inside the story. What is this discovery? Maybe seeing the street. Devon goes out to play and does not discover the street, although he maybe could. "Piotrek" goes out and is on the street. Nikki goes behind the marketplace and sees women who know Devon sexually in the end. She has access to the whole memory of Devon - maybe she has access to the whole memory of all living beings in her moment of death. Her thoughts reflect
those memories. She discovers something inside the story. But she has an advantage: She is a little girl who went behind the marketplace.
Also, it is in the nature of Lynch to be interested in such things. There is a great video of him on youtube, or was anyway, maybe still there, where he talks about the death of Marilyn Monroe and the interviewer asks if he wants to know what happened, and he says yes. Then she asks, but would the truth be the best story? He says yes, because we want to know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG6dslMSxhw&NR=1
Thank you very much for this link. I will be able to watch it, when I have access to DSL again, which probably will be on the 07.04. (well, interesting date). Watched youtube-movies with David Lynch before and mostly liked it very much. David Lynch has a very positive effect on me.
So he knows that people want to know the answer to this. So I don't think he would leave it with no answer.
Yes, probably yes. Think that one is not allowed to be too strong with the search for evidence. Could lead to insanity...
Also, as before, there is a way to know who the corpse in MD was. Very few people know it, even though many think they understand the movie. So in MD, when the identity of the corpse is discovered, the rest of the story begins to reveal itself.
MD is one of my favourite movies. The times I watched it I discovered myself catched to the movie (especially during the "end" (maybe the last hour)) as I couldn`t remember with regard to any other movie. I think it`s the mixture of the helplessness of the black haired woman, the intense new love between the women, the atmosphere of the theater and the hard emotional possibility of the "changed" black haired woman combined with absolutely fitting music. MD is just incredible. It`s also the naive behaviour of the blond haired woman and the flowing between reality and fiction and the men behind the things who decide. But I will watch it again (first time in English) and will think about the corpse again. For example, I didn`t know that the blond haired woman has two names in the credits so far.
She is in love with him.
Yes, probably yes. Otherwise it could be someone completely new to her. One she hadn`t expected. Maybe she saw only rabbits so far on her television. A male human could be someone more of her kind. Ok, she saw Visitor 1 before, but maybe she knew that she actually was a rabbit.
The combination of saying she can't give him children and that she will never let him have her mean clearly to me that she fears losing him to the fertile woman.
Fear might be the entrance for the phantom. We also have a clear connection to marriage here. If she would not be married to him, she probably would say something like "Please, let me not alone" or "I don`t want that you go to her" instead of "I will not let you have her".
He doesn't look to me like he's out in that cold looking for fresh air. He seems apprehensive. He's waiting for something. Maybe he is waiting to meet her at 9:45 but that doesn't happen because he is killed.
Somehow there is a connection to the "Maj." beating "Gruszka" scene. These scenes could be different possibilities. "Piotrek" could be aggressive in his thoughts. But he doesn`t put this aggression into action. He could go to a prostitute and beat her. Maybe Lost Girl sees that. Maybe she sees that he doesn`t go to prostitutes, although she maybe could expected that. But the more simpler way of seeing it probably is to assume that the phantom did not only beat "Gruszka", but murdered her. And "Piotrek" knows the time, although the man who asks him is not the cause of this knowing. "Piotrek" checked the time before and is very aware of it.
But ... again, different versions of the monolog woman may see her and Nikki is the only one who knew about OHIBT.
One version of the monolog woman identifies a version of herself as a woman acting with street girls (on the Devon-Nikki-level this could mean from Nikki`s point of view: "I know that I sank much, but I did not expect that I sank that much."). But the other direction seems to be different: The woman acting with street girls does not recognize another version of herself, but a woman who pursues her. The woman who recognices a version of herself still seems to follow the alley behind the marketplace, while the other woman maybe is in the marketplace (selling her own body).
Again, Mr. K. is the one up those stairs so she may have been trying to kill him.
Think that there is a very low possibility that someone could come to the idea to kill Mr. K. At least on the level on which Mr. K is perceptable as we see him. But what motives could "Gruszka" have to try to kill him on another level? The sadness about murdered "Piotrek"? The despair of beeing infertile? The insanity which could come from loosing a child?
But then what happens?
I credit woman in white to murder the two leads of 4 7, who possibly are her husband "Piotrek" and "Ormond". Lost Girl seems to be killed by hypnotizer phantom.
The case of Mr. K. is different because they are exactly the same stairs and both she and Dern carry screwdrivers there.
Maybe "Gruszka" tried something to do against the curse. But she didn`t go out to play (normally she is only seen at home, she is only seen on the street, when it is already too late). Nikki went out to play and displays something for Mr. K with the help of the rabbits.
After the sÃ©ance where there is a red lamp over LG's head, we have a scene in the rabbit room and we can see a lamp with a red shade in the next room through the window.
I never made that connection so far.
But if he were Sue's husband, why would he have been searching in the woods?
While Nikki`s husband seems to be Mr. perfect, Sue`s husband seems to be Mr. unperfect from each the wives perspectives. I don`t know what the "Piotek" in the woods wants. He could be addicted to the hypnosis of the phantom or he might want to hunt down the murderer of his wife Lost Girl. The "Piotrek" at the sÃ©ance doesn`t seem to know the ghost very well.
Could it be that Gruszka killed him by mistake?
Probably not. But the stairs seem to have a meaning. Maybe also "Piotrek" tried to do something against the curse. But he couldn`t do that, because he wasn`t a little girl.
She's in a crazy frame of mind but it's hard to imagine what she expected to find there.
Her face expression seems to suggest that she would like to expect nothing. It seems that she already knows of which kind the things would be there, but doesn`t want to have that knowledge to be true.
It seems to me to be how the phantom gets into the movie.
I think that the phantom is one feature of the curse. And a curse works automatically. The curse is inside the story. One uses the story and the curse comes with it. To use the story for a movie means that a director needs people who go out to play. Nikki and Devon go out to play Sue and Billy. Nikki follows the alley, has the right features to solve the curse. In the confrontation scene we see how the phantom works and how Nikki works. The sudden seeing of Doris could be seen as a first success of Nikki against the phantom.
So the reason, I would think, would be that different people see the story different ways. I am trying to sort out which view belongs to whom.
Billy and Doris both seem to be infected with the phantom. Billy act like the phantom would act, if he would be a being on the "reality-level". And Doris is hypnotized since long. Nikki who plays Sue does something that Doris becomes aware of her being hypnotized.
btw When did Ben Horn say that? When he was playing Civil War games? It was probably just meant as a funny line.
He said that during his playing-Civil-War-games-illness.