This Is The Street

Discussion of INLAND EMPIRE

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:42 pm

applesnoranges wrote:Then (1) why are they called Zydowicz and not some other name?


With Zydowicz we could ask ourself what kind of people people are with such a name. We could answer that such people could have something to do with producing movies.

And (2) it is a thought which is "thinkable" but why would one think this?


Difficult to say. Difficult like why I see a connection between Mrs. Zydowicz and the woman behind "Lost Girl" in the on the street scene. But also difficult like the question why it is so important that Nikki needs some Polish.

So (1) why would Janek do that?


Because it is his nature as one with two faces. He cannot do otherwise. Also the gun-solution could be a quite good solution for "Piotrek". With being against it Janek could take party for the phantom here (inside the taking party for Piotrek).

And (2) how does that fit with Janek's attempts to get rid of him?


I can`t see a true hint for "to get rid of him". He "just" can be very annoyed.

btw: I wondered for a long time what happened to the other kid?


The older person could not be a doctor, but the brother of the younger child. btw - It`s a little bit "serious" to use a child in that age in a scene like this I assume. On the ohter side that use contributes to the dramatic atmosphere.

The emotions we see on "Sue`s" face in that intensity certainly isn`t the intensity how it stands in the script of OHIBT. Also the way "Billy" talks certainly isn`t the way how it is in that script. Again, it can be that we see here Nikki`s true emotions and how she feels. Thrown away by Devon. That there is a Doris as the wife of Billy could represent a further state. If the phantom sees an egoistic advantage for a marriage he will use hypnosis not only to have sex with his victim, but marry his victim.

But how did she come to see the Axxon n sign?


We can assume that she sees it after her death, although we maybe see the death moment afterwards. But that`s the point. Was it before or after? Maybe it doesn`t matter in the moment of death.

"What time is it?" indeed!


Late now, :)
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:09 am

MichaelPW wrote:The older person could not be a doctor, but the brother of the younger child. btw - It`s a little bit "serious" to use a child in that age in a scene like this I assume. On the ohter side that use contributes to the dramatic atmosphere.

In the credits Alexi Yulish is "doctor". He gives an opinion about how much longer the sick child should stay out of school. Here is his picture: http://alexiyulish.com/ btw others say that they are certain that they see him in the nightclub over on the left. My screen doesn't seem to display 16X9 but several people have said that.
The emotions we see on "Sue`s" face in that intensity certainly isn`t the intensity how it stands in the script of OHIBT. Also the way "Billy" talks certainly isn`t the way how it is in that script. Again, it can be that we see here Nikki`s true emotions and how she feels. Thrown away by Devon.

I've also wondered if this is not a calculated move on Nikki's part, to enter the world of Billy in another version of the story simply to provoke Doris. This does not seem to be a good idea however and soon we see that the phantom is involved. The odd thing though is that Sue seems to have got the idea to go over there by looking through the silk. At least that was the scene before.
If the phantom sees an egoistic advantage for a marriage he will use hypnosis not only to have sex with his victim, but marry his victim.

Judging from his selling watches, what he seems to want is control.

btw, the Dern monologs in MTTH are much longer than in the feature so they are too long to write out, but at one point she says to Mr. K. something like, "That man started coming around again. You know what! Selling watches again!" She seems disgusted with him and that there is no chance in the world that she would buy a watch. She would rather have the worst luck in the world than deal with him. So she seems to have a great strength that Lost Girl does not have. That must be why it is Nikki's task to help Lost Girl.

But how did she come to see the Axxon n sign?

We can assume that she sees it after her death, although we maybe see the death moment afterwards. But that`s the point. Was it before or after? Maybe it doesn`t matter in the moment of death.

"It's a scene that happened yesterday but I know it's tomorrow."
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:11 am

applesnoranges wrote:In the credits Alexi Yulish is "doctor".


Ok, maybe the other child isn`t just there at that moment.

btw others say that they are certain that they see him in the nightclub over on the left.


I was always looking for the asian woman we see in the end. And maybe identified her. In the future I will look for this person. btw: Interestingly we have Nikki in front of a door watcher very urgently wanting in. And the keyword seems to be a word similar to Karolina. So maybe the keyword is Lost Girl. Maybe the dancing on the table scene represents a state of her own life ("I was standing in the middle.")

I've also wondered if this is not a calculated move on Nikki's part, to enter the world of Billy in another version of the story simply to provoke Doris.


Nikki says "I don`t care...there is more." What does she mean? Perhaps more people who are hypnotized by the phantom. Suddenly Doris sees that. Sees that she was hypnotized, too.

This does not seem to be a good idea however and soon we see that the phantom is involved.


It seems that we get a general view of the phantom`s working. I like the people in the background as white people.

The odd thing though is that Sue seems to have got the idea to go over there by looking through the silk. At least that was the scene before.


Something is wrong already before she is there what we clearly see on her face. When she is there she sees that even more is wrong.

Judging from his selling watches, what he seems to want is control.


Yes, this seems to be the "first factor". Secondly could be to get women to hotel rooms and tell them what he wants. Sex, for example, the same thing Devon seems to want from women. He takes their keys to "their" rooms (houses?). It seems that the phantom (inside Devon) took a especially control about Doris. It seems that he told her that he loves her so much that he wants to marry her. I know that this is within OHIBT, but the hypnosis (or tried hypnosis) from the phantom (in Devon) to Nikki is "real".

btw, the Dern monologs in MTTH are much longer than in the feature so they are too long to write out, but at one point she says to Mr. K. something like, "That man started coming around again. You know what! Selling watches again!"


How interesting! I`m looking forward to see it!

So she seems to have a great strength that Lost Girl does not have. That must be why it is Nikki's task to help Lost Girl.


Yes, maybe yes.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:07 pm

MichaelPW wrote:Ok, maybe the other child isn`t just there at that moment.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Maybe David Lynch is playing a trick on you! He deliberately had Dern say two children and then see only one child. I can't imagine that it would not be to express something. Again, I think reality is as perceived in these movies. When she said "You have a wife and two kids", that would be how Nikki sees it because that is what her script says. This is clearly only Nikki in this scene. But the second time we can't quite see whose perception it is. I'd say that in this one seen only what we are seeing is Doris' view of things and that view is invaded by Sue who has gone mad. That's why one kid; a different person or two different people see it that way. I think the scene was made that way deliberately to show us that.
I was always looking for the asian woman we see in the end. And maybe identified her. In the future I will look for this person.

I'm not quite sure I see her either. Maybe. But if we do, it is not just to confuse us but to tell us something. And what it tells us must be, again, that we are seeing the views of different people, but I can't quite untangle whose at this point.
btw: Interestingly we have Nikki in front of a door watcher very urgently wanting in. And the keyword seems to be a word similar to Karolina. So maybe the keyword is Lost Girl.

There must be some reason for the similarity of names. This is another name carousel because one of the real dancers in that club (a real place called "40 Deuce") is named Carolina someone and one of the dancers in the movie is played by an actress named Carolina someone. Also, notice that the name Carolina is spelled like the state North Carolina, even though they are pronounced differently. There is a shot in the extras of David Lynch preparing the gate keeper for the scene and he says something like, "It's like this crazy person has been bugging you to get in all evening and you've been sending her away but this time, you don't know why, you just decide to let her in."

I just thought of something else: He is a gate keeper like Janek. (???)
...she says to Mr. K. something like, "That man started coming around again. You know what! Selling watches again!"

When she says this, she looks intently at Mr. K. when she says very loudly, You know what! She seems to know already that Mr. K. already knows about him and they both think of him as big trouble. It's as if she has died and gone to see "the man upstairs" (a colloquialism for God) and is pleading the case of her life, so she clearly shows here that she would not do what Lost Girl did.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:36 am

applesnoranges wrote:He deliberately had Dern say two children and then see only one child. I can't imagine that it would not be to express something.


Ok ( :) ), when we can`t see the other child and isn`t in school at that time (of course not, it`s in the evening) it seems your suggestion that maybe something happened to that other child. Maybe Doris killed her child (maybe this is suggested by the Doris at the police station scene). The cause could be that she is hypnotized. Maybe Nikki helps Doris to identify her being hypnotized.

I'm not quite sure I see her either. Maybe.


I`m neither. Maybe the one who sits in the near of the door (but that`s primarily not my suggestion). She could it be.

But if we do, it is not just to confuse us but to tell us something.


Yes, probably yes. When Nikki sits down - her face-expression is so... ...lethargic... ...magically! It chains me. Maybe not direct, but at least indirect. Also the whispering of the woman into Nikki`s ear has an increasing effect on me. Very dramatic this whole sequence in a certain sense. Maybe her face expression when sitting down means something like "my main job in this life is not to stand in the middle". The woman who is whispering (I have used maximum volume, but it seems that we shall not know what she is whispering) seems to show her an exit.

There must be some reason for the similarity of names.


Yes, probably yes.

This is another name carousel because one of the real dancers in that club (a real place called "40 Deuce") is named Carolina someone and one of the dancers in the movie is played by an actress named Carolina someone. Also, notice that the name Carolina is spelled like the state North Carolina, even though they are pronounced differently.


Is North Carolina a state in the south? Well, wait a minute I can check that. Obviously in the south-east of the United States.

There is a shot in the extras of David Lynch preparing the gate keeper for the scene and he says something like, "It's like this crazy person has been bugging you to get in all evening and you've been sending her away but this time, you don't know why, you just decide to let her in."


Oh, thank you very much for this information. I often ask myself what David Lynch would have said to the actors ( - especially when eye-blinks are "significant"). I also already did that at that scene. Yes, the actor truly acts as not knowing why. So why? The keyword seems to have something like magic power.

I just thought of something else: He is a gate keeper like Janek. (???)


Apparently yes. So maybe there is someone with another face. Maybe it is the woman who shows her the exit (which apparently leads to Mr. K).

btw - the one who is leaning at the wall reminds me on a watcher from old times.

When she says this, she looks intently at Mr. K. when she says very loudly, You know what! She seems to know already that Mr. K. already knows about him and they both think of him as big trouble. It's as if she has died and gone to see "the man upstairs" (a colloquialism for God) and is pleading the case of her life, so she clearly shows here that she would not do what Lost Girl did.


And when she also was Lost Girl in a former life, then she says now to Mr. K: "In my last life I wasn`t trading with the devil as I did in my life when I was the real-life-character Lost Girl is based on." And Mr. K asks: "But were you in fact seeing other men?" Maybe she answers: "Yes, but that had no significance as I explain you." Ultimately Mr. K shows her the way which will lead to the dancing hall.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:58 pm

MichaelPW wrote:Ok ( :) ), when we can`t see the other child and isn`t in school at that time (of course not, it`s in the evening) it seems your suggestion that maybe something happened to that other child. Maybe Doris killed her child (maybe this is suggested by the Doris at the police station scene). The cause could be that she is hypnotized. Maybe Nikki helps Doris to identify her being hypnotized.

I thought something like this at first but it never connected with anything. The idea is still there though, so here's how it went: Someone (Piotrek?) killed the Side's other child. It was pointed out in the iec board that the person in a white dress with her back turned appeared, by body shape etc. to be a teen girl "” someone between 12 and 18. I thought this might be the missing child. But I could find no sense in it at all. No reason she should say what she says. So that's probably wrong. But the idea was that when Nikki as Sue says, "Look in the other room!", the child's body would be found there.

But I don't think that now. I see this story, like MD, as told from the points of view of different people, as when I say that the characters dreamed the scenes. Nikki dreams that her script says that Billy had two children. But in the confrontation scene, we see a completely different Billy that we saw Nikki acting against for OHIBT. I see this scene as the dream of Doris. It is Doris' view of what her life is like. That is why when Sue invades it, she's bewildered to see that the story is entirely different from how she had seen it. Sue had been previously in Nikki's dream, instructed by Nikki and through Nikki, Lost Girl. She now found herself somewhat like Alice through the Looking Glass, in a completely different world. In that world, the world as Doris saw it, Doris and Billy had one child.
Yes, probably yes. When Nikki sits down - her face-expression is so... ...lethargic... ..

I can't respond as if I thought that woman is Nikki because I don't. She somewhat becomes Nikki later, in the death scene, but at this point, talking to Mr. K., she seems to be someone else, someone not named. The story of Sue seems to be told by both her and Nikki, but at this point I think it is the other person as a character of her own.
Is North Carolina a state in the south? Well, wait a minute I can check that. Obviously in the south-east of the United States.

Yes, as you probably saw, North Carolina and South Carolina are next to each other, both in "the deep south". To people in California, anyone from there would be considered very foreign. Of course all sorts of people live everywhere, but that is the nature of regional prejudice here. So the description of the phantom and his sister being from North Carolina fits perfectly with that idea of the deep south as a place filled with mindless barbarians. Yet, the idea that he was a Marine adds some respectability to him in a way, so it makes him more mysterious. At the same time it also makes him seem more dangerous.
Yes, the actor truly acts as not knowing why. So why? The keyword seems to have something like magic power.

All those references hitting us at that point of confused panic are very disorienting. Different universes seem to be shaking and vibrating against one another. Yes, that seems to be the magic word but we never quite know why, why this crazy woman would have a friend who works in an upscale night club like that. (David Lynch also tells the story of going there for the birthday of Dennis Hopper and how much he loved the dancers, the music, etc.)
I just thought of something else: He is a gate keeper like Janek. (???)

Apparently yes. So maybe there is someone with another face. Maybe it is the woman who shows her the exit (which apparently leads to Mr. K).

I don't really get much out of the idea that Janek is the god Janus. It was an interesting thought but I don't see that it means Janek had every quality attributed to the god. One could go into ancient literature and find all sorts of things, but how many of them could mean anything. The actor's name is "Jan Hench", so maybe that's all there is to it.
btw - the one who is leaning at the wall reminds me on a watcher from old times.

Who? What?
And when she also was Lost Girl in a former life, then she says now to Mr. K: "In my last life I wasn`t trading with the devil as I did in my life when I was the real-life-character Lost Girl is based on." And Mr. K asks: "But were you in fact seeing other men?" Maybe she answers: "Yes, but that had no significance as I explain you." Ultimately Mr. K shows her the way which will lead to the dancing hall.

It gets a little complicated to imagine all that. Gruszka plays Lost Girl and also the buyer of the watch; I'm not sure that there was a 4 7 movie; that may be only something Nikki was told and then the rest followed as her fantasies of it. The main point seems to me to be that the Dern confessing woman is arguing for the fate of Lost Girl's soul. Initially Nikki was shown a version of what her next life might be like if she were not careful (by V#1) and parts of that life, the life of Sue, also seems to be told by the monologue woman. So maybe this woman is saying that she knows the next life of Lost Girl will not make the same mistakes.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:20 am

applesoranges wrote:It was pointed out in the iec board that the person in a white dress with her back turned appeared, by body shape etc. to be a teen girl "” someone between 12 and 18.


I don`t think that. Would estimate her within the twenties. As a consequence of "Piotrek"`s leaving she probably kills the cause of "Piotrek"'s leaving. Her imagined cause. Obviously she thinks that "Piotrek" goes to "Lost Girl". But it seems that he only goes for a little walk on the street at 9.45. Other men go to "Lost Girl". But "Piotrek" not.

But the idea was that when Nikki as Sue says, "Look in the other room!", the child's body would be found there.


There might be a dead body in the other room. Maybe Sue killed her husband Smithy. Maybe Sue told Smithy that she is pregnant. Knowing that he can`t father children maybe he attempted to kill her.

In fact, one child in the confrontation scene is one child too much. Ok, the hitting scene seems not to be real, but nevertheless it can have traumatic effects on the child. But it contributes to the dramatic atmosphere, as protecting-thoughts in people get probably activated. I think the other child is perhaps in another room playing with toys.

But in the confrontation scene, we see a completely different Billy that we saw Nikki acting against for OHIBT.


The phantom (within Billy) had what it wanted. It has no need for Nikki/Sue anymore. It tries to maintain the hypnosis on Nikki/Sue. But Nikki/Sue defends against the hypnosis. This defence leads to a weakening of the hypnosis. Even Doris realizes the effects of the hypnosis.

I see this scene as the dream of Doris. It is Doris' view of what her life is like.


She becomes aware of the effects of hypnosis on her own.

That is why when Sue invades it, she's bewildered to see that the story is entirely different from how she had seen it.


The hypnosis is still full working. It seems that Nikki/Sue saw something in the hole what let her to drive there. Maybe she saw something that she didn`t want to see. She didn`t believe it and wants to have proof that it isn`t true. Her face expression seems to suggest that she saw somehing which can`t be disproved. But she just doesn`t want to have it true. In the confrontation scene it seems that that is dramatized.

She somewhat becomes Nikki later, in the death scene, but at this point, talking to Mr. K., she seems to be someone else, someone not named.


Maybe we have here something like a waiting room. "Nikki" has to wait until Mr. K is asking for her.

So the description of the phantom and his sister being from North Carolina fits perfectly with that idea of the deep south as a place filled with mindless barbarians.


And in TP I think "Mr. Horne" says to Jerry Horne: "I think God is a southerner." :lol:

Different universes seem to be shaking and vibrating against one another.


:)

Yes, that seems to be the magic word but we never quite know why, why this crazy woman would have a friend who works in an upscale night club like that.


Maybe Nikki/Sue/Lost Girl prostituted theirselves to save some money.

David Lynch also tells the story of going there for the birthday of Dennis Hopper and how much he loved the dancers, the music, etc.


Maybe the right place to meet him some day coincidentally and ask if he can recommend a good TM teacher in California, because I don`t trust the German TM "boss". :)

I don't really get much out of the idea that Janek is the god Janus. It was an interesting thought but I don't see that it means Janek had every quality attributed to the god.


It really explains why he helps the phantom and Piotrek. And I think that there are people who imagine god as a person like him.

One could go into ancient literature and find all sorts of things, but how many of them could mean anything.


Some things have a strong meaning nowadays. Maybe because those decribed natural phenomena as they exist for million years.

The actor's name is "Jan Hench", so maybe that's all there is to it.


Maybe David Lynch thought: "One more reason to let him play "Janek"."

Who? What?


Nearly at the end of the queue.

The main point seems to me to be that the Dern confessing woman is arguing for the fate of Lost Girl's soul.


So the question maybe is, if she is more "altruistic" or "egoistic" here.

So maybe this woman is saying that she knows the next life of Lost Girl will not make the same mistakes.


Still thinking about that John Neff wrote that the scene is about her death.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:10 pm

MichaelPW wrote:I don`t think that. Would estimate her within the twenties.

I think so too; I was just passing the other idea on.
As a consequence of "Piotrek"`s leaving she probably kills the cause of "Piotrek"'s leaving. Her imagined cause. Obviously she thinks that "Piotrek" goes to "Lost Girl". But it seems that he only goes for a little walk on the street at 9.45. Other men go to "Lost Girl". But "Piotrek" not.

But 2 things: The corpse seems to be played by Julia Ormond, so it may be a case of Ormond playing the Gruszka character, neither of whom has a name in this part. Confusing, but that's what fits. Second, "Piotrek" is also killed. The first thought is that the Majchrzak and Gruszka characters killed the other couple (Lucas and woman in white). Gruzka because the other woman had hold of Lucas and she wanted him and Lucas because Maj was jealous of Gruzka's attraction to him. What doesn't seem right is that none of Gruszka's characters seem to be murderous (except going up the stairs). This would mean that the woman in white and the corpse are the same person ... but it just doesn't seem right. There is something out of joint about it.
I think the other child is perhaps in another room playing with toys.

If that were the case then there would be no point in Lynch saying that they had children at all. There has to be meaning to the dilemma of one child vs two children or they would not be in the story at all. I think it is just to show who is dreaming the scene. The Dern and Ormond characters have different versions of the story; they re in different movies, but Sue gets a wild hair up her ass and drives over to cause trouble at the Sides' home.
I see this scene as the dream of Doris. It is Doris' view of what her life is like.

She becomes aware of the effects of hypnosis on her own.

She does seem to be acting on her own but the way it is shown, it is hard to know whose is the vision of the phantom. Somehow they must both share this vision, even though everything else is different.
The hypnosis is still full working. It seems that Nikki/Sue saw something in the hole what let her to drive there. Maybe she saw something that she didn`t want to see. She didn`t believe it and wants to have proof that it isn`t true. Her face expression seems to suggest that she saw somehing which can`t be disproved. But she just doesn`t want to have it true. In the confrontation scene it seems that that is dramatized.

Yes, that is likely. Maybe seeing through the silk allows her to see different worlds, different stories, like she saw the story in old Poland. In this case she saw the world from the eyes of Doris. She can't tolerate that and can only accept the idea that there is only one world.
Maybe we have here something like a waiting room. "Nikki" has to wait until Mr. K is asking for her.

She only gets to see him when all other hope is gone.
And in TP I think "Mr. Horne" says to Jerry Horne: "I think God is a southerner." :lol:

The work of great "southern" writers that come to mind, Faulkner, Tenessee Williams, Cormack McCarthy, is all very "dark". Someone wrote that if the southernness of a southern novel is measured by the number of dead mules in it, then Cormack McCarthy's Blood Meridian is the most southern of them all. :)
Yes, that seems to be the magic word but we never quite know why, why this crazy woman would have a friend who works in an upscale night club like that.

MichaelPW wrote:Maybe Nikki/Sue/Lost Girl prostituted theirselves to save some money.

I think the point of including the exotic dancers in the night club is to show that they are not prostitutes, that David Lynch acknowledges this kind of show as legitimate entertainment.
Maybe the right place to meet him some day coincidentally and ask if he can recommend a good TM teacher in California, because I don`t trust the German TM "boss". :)

His TM teacher is in the movie. She is person listed as "Teacher" in the credits, and is one of the guests at the party. (cinemalover on iec.com had the same teacher)
The actor's name is "Jan Hench", so maybe that's all there is to it.EDIT: That should be "Hencz" I think. imdb credits are confusing; they say Janek (as Jan Hench); I don't know what that means.

Maybe David Lynch thought: "One more reason to let him play "Janek"."

Could be. When Laura Harring was driving up to see David Lynch to talk about the part of Camilla, she had a car accident on the way. Lynch must have thought: "This is the girl."
So the question maybe is, if she is more "altruistic" or "egoistic" here.

At the beginning, she smiles brightly when she says to Kingsly, "Let's do it!" But then, when she takes on the task, the great work, of telling the longest running story, she discovers that she has a debt to all the other actors and writers and story tellers who have carried this story all through history. She can't just repeat what they did; she must contribute something in order to pay her debt to them. She must heal the story.
Still thinking about that John Neff wrote that the scene is about her death.

Very important to keep in mind. He gave us an anchor there.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:56 pm

applesnoranges wrote:The corpse seems to be played by Julia Ormond, so it may be a case of Ormond playing the Gruszka character, neither of whom has a name in this part.


Never identified the corpse so far. I don`t think that the woman in white is Julia Ormand, because it seems that the speech fits to her and I don`t think that Julia Ormand can speak Polish in that way. We are asked who the corpse is. It is interesting, if the corpse is played by Julia Ormand. When the phantom and Lost Girl meet on the street, the phantom informs Lost Girl that there was a murder. So maybe it is not "Piotrek" he thinks about, when he says "I think you know the person", but "Julia Ormand". He would not think about another person who visits Lost Girl as a prostitute, but maybe about a person Lost Girl knows more personally. But it seems to be seldom that he sees Lost Girl on the street. So where did he see her together with "Julia Ormand"? And Lost Girl seems to be very shocked about those informations. Maybe "Julia Ormand" is a very good friend of her or her lover. Or Lost Girl killed her with a screwdriver. Maybe she has that screwdriver beyond her curtain. It seems that she comes from the direction where the murder happened. It seems to be a strange time for doing a walk. And, of course, when Lost Girl just comes from a murdering, it is strange that someone - a phantom - saw it who comes from another direction. We have the information that the two leads were killed during the making of 4 7. It seems that "Julia Ormand" and "Piotrek" were the two leads. Maybe Lost Girl asks herself "When I come just from murdering "Julia Ormand" (or "Piotrek"), how can it be that the phantom already knows that?" Maybe it is the beginning for questioning causes and consequences, which perhaps leads to "Look at me and tell me if you`ve seen me before". The time comes when Lost Girl dies and in the next life - as Nikki - she has to die how she murdered a person (or two) in a former life. Maybe the rabbits take care for such a "justice". But why would Lost Girl kill the two leads of 4 7? And who is the woman in white? Maybe there was the "problem" that Julia Ormand wasn`t in Poland. Perhaps the woman in white shall be "Julia Ormand". So we would see her alive and then dead. But somehow it is more like that the woman in white fantasieses or has a view into future about murdering "Julia Ormand". Maybe there is a real affair between "Piotrek" and "Julia Ormand" during the making of 4 7 like there is a real affair between Nikki and Devon. Like "Piotrek" the woman in white says that she doesn`t allow an affair. "Piotrek" also says that they enforce it - when not theirselves then others. Maybe in the past those others was Lost Girl. But why would Lost Girl help woman in white to kill "Piotrek" and "Julia Ormand"? Maybe because "the bonds of marriage are real ones". Maybe she cannot do otherwise.

The first thought is that the Majchrzak and Gruszka characters killed the other couple (Lucas and woman in white).


I don`t think so, because the meeting on the street scene and the content about what they speak, seems to be real. There would be no sense for talking so, if they had murdered together. Moreover Lost Girl doesn`t seem to be motivated to plan a murder togther with "the phantom".

Gruzka because the other woman had hold of Lucas and she wanted him and Lucas because Maj was jealous of Gruzka's attraction to him.


Ah, I see - independently. I wonder if Lost Girl with the screwdriver is in the house in which "Piotrek" lives together with the woman in white. "Maj" seems to stand above things like jealousy as a phantom as well as someone who visits prostitutes. But killing could be a feature of being a phantom. So - maybe - "Maj" and "Lost Girl" meet on the street and both are murderers. "But" I think there is a meaning in that that they almost didn`t recognize each other.

Maybe Lost Girl fulfilled the thoughts of woman in white.

If that were the case then there would be no point in Lynch saying that they had children at all.


Think that there is a real contribution to the dramatic atmosphere by the presence of the child. And childs can be viewed as a feature of a blooming marriage. That increases the "hurdle" of starting an affair. Maybe the word "two" was necessary, so that the viewers would not start to think about a connection between one child of Billy and the words "little boy", "little girl" or "lost girl". Rather there seems to be a connection between the dead son of "Nikki" and Smithie`s son.

There has to be meaning to the dilemma of one child vs two children or they would not be in the story at all.


There is no dilemma when we assume that the other child is playing somewhere in the rest of the house. Why couldn`t this be? Doris seems to be quite satisfied with her life in the beginning of the confrontation scene, although one of her childs is ill. If she had lost a child, she probably would be much more serious about the fact that one child is ill now.

I think it is just to show who is dreaming the scene.


While the "garden-scene" seems to be a "real" OHIBT scene, the confrontation scene seems to have nothing to do with the primarily making of OHIBT. Somehow there are three levels of "reality": the story of OHIBT, the level we see on the face of "Sue" and the level of an old story containing the phantom. Last one seems to be the most dominating one. Here we see how the phantom really works. It`s a "core scene" with this ununderstandable speech, hand moves and the "white people". And with Billy we have the translation into reality. Billy tries to give Sue orders. It seems that such orders had an effect on Sue in the past, but now she says: "I don`t care - there is more." And look her gesticulation - like an animal ready for fight. Maybe Doris realizes in a certain sense that she was killed in a former life. Perhaps she sees herself with a screwdriver in herself, but maybe doesn`t know why.

The Dern and Ormond characters have different versions of the story; they re in different movies, but Sue gets a wild hair up her ass and drives over to cause trouble at the Sides' home.


I think the one child - two children difference isn`t a sufficient hint for assuming that we see here a scene how it is perceived by one person. It seems that Sue drives to the Side`s home to have love with Billy again, although her face expression already suggests that this won`t come true and that she would know that if she would take serious what she had seen. There is a certain connection to the "scene" in MD, in which Betty hopes for love with Diane again (if I have the names right), but more and more realizes that things have changed.

She does seem to be acting on her own but the way it is shown, it is hard to know whose is the vision of the phantom.


Maybe it isn`t a vision at all. Maybe it is reality. And in Billy we have a translation into a "OHIBT"-reality. Doris and Sue are receivers of the orders which are given by the phantom. With Sue Doris has a model for doing something against the effects of the hypnosis of the phantom.

Somehow they must both share this vision, even though everything else is different.


Both are victims of the phantom.

Maybe seeing through the silk allows her to see different worlds, different stories, like she saw the story in old Poland.


Yes, it is difficult to imagine what she saw. Maybe she saw that she had an affair with Billy and that she did not hear anything from him since she had one with him. So maybe she thought: "That cannot be. I remember how it was. I will drive to him." Perhaps she sees there: "What? You have a wife, Devon?"

The work of great "southern" writers that come to mind, Faulkner, Tenessee Williams, Cormack McCarthy, is all very "dark". Someone wrote that if the southernness of a southern novel is measured by the number of dead mules in it, then Cormack McCarthy's Blood Meridian is the most southern of them all. :)


Thank you for that! :) Will keep those in mind. I overthought what I wrote and think now that "Mr. Horne" said: "I think god was a southerner."

I think the point of including the exotic dancers in the night club is to show that they are not prostitutes, that David Lynch acknowledges this kind of show as legitimate entertainment.


It seems to be a part of the red light envionment. The red light environment seems to consist of legitimate and illegal entertainment. I don`t know, if prostitution in California is legitimate and to what extent prostitution is legitimate in Germany. The horizontal business seems to follow its own laws.

His TM teacher is in the movie. She is person listed as "Teacher" in the credits, and is one of the guests at the party.


Oh, very interesting!!! It seems that David Lynch bought the Teufelsberg in Germany for the TM organisation. Also that is problematic in some sense. So - maybe - I will have enough money to get to California and pay a TM teacher one day in the future. btw - The day before yesterday I read an article about California. It was written that there is one paradise after the other. For example, one for hippies and esoterics (Big Sur) and one for enjoyers (Napa Valley). Is that true? :)

Lynch must have thought: "This is the girl."


Maybe yes. ( :) )

She must heal the story.


Perhaps she views mistakes in former lifes together with Mr. K.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:09 am

MichaelPW wrote:Never identified the corpse so far. ... Maybe she cannot do otherwise.

You sure have laid out the possibilities there! I have felt from the beginning that there must be a way to move these around so that the "maybe" disappears and we have a clear idea of what happened and who killed whom. If I can come to see that I'll be satisfied about all this. The "who is she" corpse seems to occupy the same position here that the corpse in Mulholland Dr. does. There is a way to know who she was, who killed her, and why. If you want to discuss that we can do it on the MD forum here.

Meanwhile, we have one anchor: We know that Lost Girl is in raptures over seeing the Lucas character on TV and emotionally devastated when she sees him dead. When the woman in white says she can't give him children, that is more clear evidence that there is no relationship between the two women. (I asked nosno on imdb why he said that and he had no clear reason; he was just playing with ideas.)

Yes, what I meant was that one solution was that the Gruszka and Maj characters each killed one of the other couple and were surprised to see each other on the street. She would not have killed the Lucas character for sure. He says he had seen her with that person. We saw Lucas waiting for someone at 9:45. But ... the one thing wrong here is that the Gruszka character does not seem to be a murderer. The woman in white does seem so, but she does not have that rage. That's the puzzle for me.

I just looked again at the thread on this we went over last year at iec by cinemalover:

http://messageboard.inlandempirecinema.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=971

I guess so; it does seem that Gruszka killed the Polish equivalent of Doris because she mistakenly believed "Doris" had killed her husband (really killed by Maj. character) "” and that Nikki repaid the debt by being killed as Sue. On some other thread cinemalover explained that perhaps the murder wasn't intentional; that there was a struggle and it happened accidentally in the fight. This would explain how it was possible for her soul to be redeemed by Nikki. Still, she is carrying that screwdriver up the stairs to Mr. K.'s office; I don't get that.
Ah, I see - independently. I wonder if Lost Girl with the screwdriver is in the house in which "Piotrek" lives together with the woman in white.

Then why would Mr. K. be up those same stairs? Maybe that's not where he always is but placed himself there because that's where the crime was? But what kind of place is that? It's not the Polish apartment. It's just some weird little hole.
Maybe Lost Girl fulfilled the thoughts of woman in white.

It seems so but how in the story?

btw: I should mention that in MTTH there is a short scene of a corpse in the dark in a black suit played by Justin Theroux. I'd say it was Devon.

IMaybe the word "two" was necessary, so that the viewers would not start to think about a connection between one child of Billy and the words "little boy", "little girl" or "lost girl". Rather there seems to be a connection between the dead son of "Nikki" and Smithie`s son.

OK, it would do that. But there must be an explanation for why one vs two children.
There is no dilemma when we assume that the other child is playing somewhere in the rest of the house. Why couldn`t this be?

!!!!!! :shock: Maybe when Piotrek was lecturing Devon upstairs, the Easter Bunny was downstairs painting eggs! :lol: It couldn't be because it would have no meaning. It is there for a meaning and I think the meaning is to show that we are seeing two different stories about the same characters. Sue is shocked to see that Doris is not gone, as she was in the scene from OHIBT having a drink with Billy. But this is not OHIBT.
Doris seems to be quite satisfied with her life in the beginning of the confrontation scene, although one of her childs is ill. If she had lost a child, she probably would be much more serious about the fact that one child is ill now.

Yes, that's what I mean. In the universe the way Doris sees it, she has only one child. Two children are only in the OHIBT script.
While the "garden-scene" seems to be a "real" OHIBT scene, the confrontation scene seems to have nothing to do with the primarily making of OHIBT. Somehow there are three levels of "reality": the story of OHIBT, the level we see on the face of "Sue" and the level of an old story containing the phantom. Last one seems to be the most dominating one. Here we see how the phantom really works. It`s a "core scene" with this ununderstandable speech, hand moves and the "white people". And with Billy we have the translation into reality. Billy tries to give Sue orders. It seems that such orders had an effect on Sue in the past, but now she says: "I don`t care - there is more." And look her gesticulation - like an animal ready for fight. Maybe Doris realizes in a certain sense that she was killed in a former life. Perhaps she sees herself with a screwdriver in herself, but maybe doesn`t know why.

That all seems true to me.
There is a certain connection to the "scene" in MD, in which Betty hopes for love with Diane again (if I have the names right), but more and more realizes that things have changed.

I think you mean Diane and Camilla. This scene could be viewed this way; as events in one story. Sue had an affair with Billy then got pregnant and she quit her job and her husband left, she went crazy and started hallucinating hookers in her house, then one day she went back there, after a long, long time, so Billy thought it was over and done with. And now here she comes again, completely crazy. But it could also be seen the other way, as we have been saying.
Maybe it isn`t a vision at all. Maybe it is reality. And in Billy we have a translation into a "OHIBT"-reality. Doris and Sue are receivers of the orders which are given by the phantom. With Sue Doris has a model for doing something against the effects of the hypnosis of the phantom.

Both are victims of the phantom.

That all fits. The phantom can be a way of describing what fear and anger and distress allow into one's life. Bob got into Twin Peaks through the fear of others. He fed on Garmonbozia, pain and suffering.
Yes, it is difficult to imagine what she saw. Maybe she saw that she had an affair with Billy and that she did not hear anything from him since she had one with him. So maybe she thought: "That cannot be. I remember how it was. I will drive to him." Perhaps she sees there: "What? You have a wife, Devon?"

Yes, as above, it can be seen that way. btw: Another thing she says in MTTH, during the argument over her husband's shoes in the house, is "I got to quit my job." He questions her and she says, "The doctor said." I just thought that this may not be true; it may be that Billy fired her when he found out.
It seems to be a part of the red light envionment. The red light environment seems to consist of legitimate and illegal entertainment. I don`t know, if prostitution in California is legitimate and to what extent prostitution is legitimate in Germany. The horizontal business seems to follow its own laws.

I just meant that David Lynch seems to portray street prostitutes as having a tragic life while the dancers in this club are the ones which, in real life, at the birthday party, he personally thought were wonderful.

Prostitution is illegal in California but everywhere anyway. Walking though that district in Stuttgart I felt the same fear as in Oakland, California where I once lived. It is legal in the next state, Nevada, but I imagine it's still the same scene full of high tension.
So - maybe - I will have enough money to get to California and pay a TM teacher one day in the future.

I would not get involved in something I had to pay for.
btw - The day before yesterday I read an article about California. It was written that there is one paradise after the other. For example, one for hippies and esoterics (Big Sur) and one for enjoyers (Napa Valley). Is that true? :)

Yes and all the houses are made of candy and everything is free! :lol: I live in the Napa Valley. Someone once called it a place where there is nothing to do but eat and drink. A great teacher of mine once called it "... a typical valley town of the worst sort." The valley is filled with pretension. The town itself is an ordinary little town like all the others.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:41 pm

applesnoranges wrote:I have felt from the beginning that there must be a way to move these around so that the "maybe" disappears and we have a clear idea of what happened and who killed whom.


I don`t see a way to do that so far. And it isn`t only our question, but also there are the questions within Inland Empire. The two questions "Who is she?" are like question marks. There is one question after the other. What can imply "I will never let you have her!"? First of all that can be true or not. Assuming it is true it could mean "I will kill you" or "I will kill her" or "I will destroy her life by killing her son"... Furthermore we don`t know, if he has got her. And we don`t know who is meant with "her". Could be "Julia Ormond". Could be "Lost Girl". Could be another person. We don`t know who "the phantom" saw with "Lost Girl", do we? Maybe he saw "Lost Girl" together with her son. Maybe she visits the place where the murder took place and discovered her dead son.

There is a way to know who she was, who killed her, and why. If you want to discuss that we can do it on the MD forum here.


I don`t feel ready to discuss MD, because I "only" saw it two or three times in German on VHS so far. But I have planned to order it on DVD (and also Blue Velvet) in a few days to have the possibility to watch it in English. Maybe I will find some things that are worth a discussion. I think primarily one thinks that the corpse is "Laura Harring" and then that that cannot be, because she lives. But the cowboy says something like "Ready to get up".

We know that Lost Girl is in raptures over seeing the Lucas character on TV and emotionally devastated when she sees him dead.


Yes, but why? It seems not to be that Lost Girl suddenly reminds something what she didn`t remind before. Maybe she has access now to informations concerning the time she lived, she didn`t know when she was living. Despite of her being in raptures there is a tear from her left eye. Mostly I think that this being in raptures also comes from the information 9.45. Moreover it could come from that she discovers that "he doesn`t go to her (Julia Ormond?)", but only breathes some fresh air on the street. Or there is a connection between the cold atmosphere he`s in and her cold "mental" state, which could lead to a reduction of her feeling to be alone. I don`t think that the woman in white is Lost Girl.

When the woman in white says she can't give him children, that is more clear evidence that there is no relationship between the two women.


Probably yes. Or the "I don`t let you have her" means "She`s my lover - I will not share her with you."

But ... the one thing wrong here is that the Gruszka character does not seem to be a murderer.


No, the screwdriver seems to be more of a protection means than a murder means to her. Otherwise she seems to be on the street in a very strange time for her and very "closed".

The woman in white does seem so, but she does not have that rage.


Yes, and her "niegde" and the repetition of that sound very decided. Nevertheless it seems that he goes to "her". And probably woman in white thinks "This will have consequences".

I guess so; it does seem that Gruszka killed the Polish equivalent of Doris because she mistakenly believed "Doris" had killed her husband (really killed by Maj. character) "” and that Nikki repaid the debt by being killed as Sue.


Probably "Gruszka" killed nobody. Otherwise people could understand Inland Empire as a kind of propaganda that murder is something forgivable.

Then why would Mr. K. be up those same stairs?


And is there a connection to the stairs on which Piotrek hears Nikki getting the part? And is there a symbolic meaning that Piotrek and Mr. Berk are upstairs? And is there a connection to "Now you are above"?

Maybe that's not where he always is but placed himself there because that's where the crime was?


He seems to be higher than Lost Girl is capable to get. It seems that Nikki has to do what Lost Girl can`t. It seems that Nikki is now capable to do things she couldn`t do in former lifes. But maybe - in general - it needs the help of the rabbits (who use magic) to get as high as Mr. K is.

btw: I should mention that in MTTH there is a short scene of a corpse in the dark in a black suit played by Justin Theroux. I'd say it was Devon.


Yes, you already mentioned that. But who`s the equivalent? "Julia Ormond" or "Piotrek"?

!!!!!! :shock: Maybe when Piotrek was lecturing Devon upstairs, the Easter Bunny was downstairs painting eggs! :lol:


No, Visitor 1 would have said "Your rabbit is involved!" :)

Sue is shocked to see that Doris is not gone, as she was in the scene from OHIBT having a drink with Billy.


She seems to be already shocked, when she enters the house.

But this is not OHIBT.


Yes, but what is it? I assume a confrontation between Nikki and the phantom.

In the universe the way Doris sees it, she has only one child. Two children are only in the OHIBT script.


Or Doris thinks "My other child is there and there in this moment", "because" within the OHIBT script Sue thinks that Billy has two children. Why would a character from OHIBT think something different from the script? Maybe Sue knows that Billy has a child with Doris and a child with another woman. But I assume that the southern mentality wouldn`t suggest that.

He questions her and she says, "The doctor said." I just thought that this may not be true; it may be that Billy fired her when he found out.


Interesting - yes, probably Billy fired her.

Yes and all the houses are made of candy and everything is free! :lol:


I have expected that! :)
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:13 pm

MichaelPW wrote:
applesnoranges wrote:I have felt from the beginning that there must be a way to move these around so that the "maybe" disappears and we have a clear idea of what happened and who killed whom.

I don`t see a way to do that so far. And it isn`t only our question, but also there are the questions within Inland Empire. The two questions "Who is she?" are like question marks. There is one question after the other. What can imply "I will never let you have her!"? First of all that can be true or not. Assuming it is true it could mean "I will kill you" or "I will kill her" or "I will destroy her life by killing her son"... Furthermore we don`t know, if he has got her. And we don`t know who is meant with "her". Could be "Julia Ormond". Could be "Lost Girl". Could be another person. We don`t know who "the phantom" saw with "Lost Girl", do we? Maybe he saw "Lost Girl" together with her son. Maybe she visits the place where the murder took place and discovered her dead son.

Yes there are other questions but some of them are this same question. 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. 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. 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

So he knows that people want to know the answer to this. So I don't think he would leave it with no answer. 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. So ... I have thought from the first time I saw IE that the question, "Who is she?" is just like that question in MD (though nobody asks that in MD; it's just there to wonder about.
We know that Lost Girl is in raptures over seeing the Lucas character on TV and emotionally devastated when she sees him dead.

Yes, but why?

She is in love with him. There are some things we know and that is one of them. Another thing we know is that the woman in white is jealous of the Gruszka character. 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. So for me, there is now no possibility of her wanting the Gruszka character for herself.
It seems not to be that Lost Girl suddenly reminds something what she didn`t remind before. Maybe she has access now to informations concerning the time she lived, she didn`t know when she was living. Despite of her being in raptures there is a tear from her left eye.

Yes, she may never have seen him dead in real life and it was shocking to her to actually see it, even though she herself is dead.
Mostly I think that this being in raptures also comes from the information 9.45. Moreover it could come from that she discovers that "he doesn`t go to her (Julia Ormond?)", but only breathes some fresh air on the street.

I don't see why. 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.
I don`t think that the woman in white is Lost Girl.

No I don't either. We are not given her name so for now I am calling her the Polish Doris, but played by someone other than Ormond. The dead Ormond character is not dressed like anyone else, so she could belong to different parts of the story. She could belong to 4 7 and/or to OHIBT. But outside those two stories, she appears only as the woman on the street in Hollywood, who is alive. But ... again, different versions of the monolog woman may see her and Nikki is the only one who knew about OHIBT.
But ... the one thing wrong here is that the Gruszka character does not seem to be a murderer.

No, the screwdriver seems to be more of a protection means than a murder means to her. Otherwise she seems to be on the street in a very strange time for her and very "closed".

Again, Mr. K. is the one up those stairs so she may have been trying to kill him.
Yes, and her "niegde" and the repetition of that sound very decided. Nevertheless it seems that he goes to "her". And probably woman in white thinks "This will have consequences".

It is the first thing we would think. But then what happens?
Probably "Gruszka" killed nobody. Otherwise people could understand Inland Empire as a kind of propaganda that murder is something forgivable.

That is the elephant in the middle of the room that we would have to ignore if we were to say that it was as simple as Polish Maj. killed Polish Lucas and Gruszka killed Ormond.
And is there a connection to the stairs on which Piotrek hears Nikki getting the part? And is there a symbolic meaning that Piotrek and Mr. Berk are upstairs? And is there a connection to "Now you are above"?

Maybe it means something, but it is her husband who is up there. The case of Mr. K. is different because they are exactly the same stairs and both she and Dern carry screwdrivers there.
He seems to be higher than Lost Girl is capable to get. It seems that Nikki has to do what Lost Girl can`t. It seems that Nikki is now capable to do things she couldn`t do in former lifes. But maybe - in general - it needs the help of the rabbits (who use magic) to get as high as Mr. K is.

Yes, that much seem solid. And the rabbits are in the same place as Mr. K. After the séance 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. Janek must have found Sue's husband who went to join the circus and brought him up those stairs to that room. But if he were Sue's husband, why would he have been searching in the woods?

btw: I should mention that in MTTH there is a short scene of a corpse in the dark in a black suit played by Justin Theroux. I'd say it was Devon.


Yes, you already mentioned that. But who`s the equivalent? "Julia Ormond" or "Piotrek"?

I figured it was Julia Ormond because they were both dressed in black for burial. But I have not noticed how Piotrek is dressed. btw, Piotrek is seen lying on some stairs, head down. Could it be that Gruszka killed him by mistake?
She seems to be already shocked, when she enters the house.

She's in a crazy frame of mind but it's hard to imagine what she expected to find there. She is confused: "What? I thought you were gone."
But this is not OHIBT.

Yes, but what is it? I assume a confrontation between Nikki and the phantom.

It seems to me to be how the phantom gets into the movie. We never saw Nikki learn that there was such a character as the phantom. The idea of him came from the monolog woman remembering that she was Sue. So, I'm wondering if Nikki has one idea of Sue and the monolog woman has another. But in that scene with Doris, if that is Nikki playing Sue, it would be how he enters the story because that is how Nikki learns about him. Through Sue, Nikki learned about seeing through the silk, so maybe that night she saw something that started her off on the road. Maybe Lost Girl told her something?
Or Doris thinks "My other child is there and there in this moment", "because" within the OHIBT script Sue thinks that Billy has two children. Why would a character from OHIBT think something different from the script?

We already know that there is a disagreement about the story. Nikki thinks there is no murder. 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.
Maybe Sue knows that Billy has a child with Doris and a child with another woman. But I assume that the southern mentality wouldn`t suggest that.

Unless we see something to suggest that, I think it just makes the story more confusing. I don't think a "southern mentality" comes into the story; I think the southern business is just to tell the characters apart by the way they talk. btw When did Ben Horn say that? When he was playing Civil War games? It was probably just meant as a funny line.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:58 pm

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 séance 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 séance 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.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Postby applesnoranges » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:15 pm

I just watched it again; still thinking about these things.
MichaelPW
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:48 am
Location: Germany

Postby MichaelPW » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:42 am

Just an additional thing about the suicide idea: I thought that the Ormond character would be the false vision of the Dern character who is on the marketplace (btw - I didn`t notice that the club is on the alley way, I just thought it. So more evidence that Axxon N. means alley.) That means that the Ormond character and the Dern character who follows the alley are the same. First one is the perception of the Dern character on the marketplace. It seems that the Dern character who follows the alley does something against the version who is on the marketplace. But we don`t see what she does (probably at least not within these scenes; otherwise it could be following the alley). We see the perception of the woman who is on the market place: "The Ormond character kills me." So alltogether we would have one woman and one death. That could mean that a suicide takes place.

Return to “INLAND EMPIRE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests