FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

Rami Airola
RR Diner Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Rami Airola »

Jonah wrote:Any theories regarding the scene with Cooper checking the security camera repeatedly until he sees himself frozen on it? I always just assumed this bit was weirdness for the sake of being weird - i.e. no hidden meaning. But do you think it relates to a dream? Or to time slowing down because of Jefferies entrance?
To me it always was a great horror-scifi-fantasy scene. Something that could've happened in some episode of Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. Nothing "for the sake of being weird", but pure imaginative fantasy entertainment.

It shows that right at that moment, something very unusual is happening in space and time. When we see him walking on a monitor screen that is supposed to be frozen still, we absolutely know that whatever he is going to do or say will be something very interesting. You wouldn't necessarily connect Jeffries to any kind of time-dimension-jumping until just after he has told his story and disappeared, so something odd must be shown before he appears, so that he would have this aura of supernatural mystery even before he says his first words.


Robert Engels had this to say in Wrapped in Plastic magazine issue 58:

"There's a great part of Twin Peaks that's builton sort of an altered reality just behind the reality that is happening. The exact same thing is happening two nanoseconds behind the thing that you're seeing. Or there is another one just in front of it that's exactly the same. For me, that means the Red Room is much more metaphysical. That would explain the two Coopers very easily - there is another Cooper just behind the other Cooper. It wasn't that we consciously put those things in the series, but David and I talked about that. It was a cool thing to think about as you wrote."

And later when talking something about the security camera scene:
"I remember that security camera stuff, and I remember us figuring that out - how you could be on camera. [...] Although it is still science fiction, we didn't want to get into time travel. But, of course, it is time travel. If you go back to what I was saying about those two reality running next to each other, it isn't time travel. They're just sort of here. It was like photographing these realities converging. He is there when he is not there. They are looking at another time."





By the way, wouldn't it be interesting to see something like that in season 3?
Maybe, if it's still Cooper's doppelganger that's walking around Twin Peaks, we see a scene where this bad Cooper is being filmed, and when he walks away from the camera, we see the good Cooper stay on the screen, being two nanoseconds away from the bad Cooper but visible in the camera due to some space-time-dimension thing happening right at that moment.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by LostInTheMovies »

I would just add that in her book David Lynch Swerves, Martha Nochimson talks a lot about the quantum concept of superposition and how it applies in many of his films (she focuses mostly on his last four films but has said since that she wishes she'd discussed Fire Walk With Me as part of the second stage of his work). Superposition - I think I'm getting this right - is where a particle can simultaneously be in two places at the same time. See Mystery Man in Lost Highway, Nikki on the movie set in Inland Empire etc. Supposedly Lynch has a fascination with quantum physics although I don't think he knows all the terminology.

I am fairly certain we will see some form of parallel/alternate worlds in the upcoming Twin Peaks. It's where Lynch's work has been heading (maybe where it's already been) and so many elements of that world, and his challenges with it, could be addressed that way. It potentially offers a way for Laura to be alive/dead and Cooper to be good/bad, both of which seem really important to Lynch.
User avatar
HoodedMatt
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Finland

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by HoodedMatt »

I've always taken the security camera thing as a warming to Coop about his splitting in two at the end of the series. Sort of "if you insist on going down this path, this is what'll happen" kind of thing. Except who or whatever is warning Cooper is not able to communicate that directly and clearly, they are only able to screw with his dreams and then with reality. And Cooper misses the warning twice over.

Quite who or what could be warning Cooper, I haven't got the foggiest, but that's how I've always taken it. Perhaps that's why we get the Giant "later" in the series proper. The agent behind the warning saw that Cooper just didn't get it, so sends the Giant to deal with him after that so as to be more explicit?
Ygdrasel
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:37 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Ygdrasel »

Jonah wrote:Any theories regarding the scene with Cooper checking the security camera repeatedly until he sees himself frozen on it? I always just assumed this bit was weirdness for the sake of being weird - i.e. no hidden meaning. But do you think it relates to a dream? Or to time slowing down because of Jefferies entrance?
I always figured it was just some bizarre intuition thing. He doesn't seem terribly shocked to see Jeffries wandering up behind him or anything so I think he was expecting something strange. As for Jeffries himself appearing and disappearing on the camera, that's just residual effects of the Lodge's weird sense of time.
Twin Peaks has layers, man. Twin Peaks is an onion. 8)
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Dalai Cooper »

when I watched this in the cinema recently (only my 2nd time) the security camera scene seemed to be a very obvious echo of the finale, with a blank-faced (but increasingly panicked) cooper walking back and forth between a room and a corridor, and eventually being faced with a double of himself
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Jonah »

Dalai Cooper wrote:when I watched this in the cinema recently (only my 2nd time) the security camera scene seemed to be a very obvious echo of the finale, with a blank-faced (but increasingly panicked) cooper walking back and forth between a room and a corridor, and eventually being faced with a double of himself
Oh. Good point. Never thought of that. Nicely construed. I like that.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Dalai Cooper »

btw this was amazing to see on the big screen but kinda horrible to see with an audience

somehow the (undeniably funny but also unheimlich) first half hour convinced the tittering rubes in the cinema that this was a comedy, and they persisted in reacting as such even after it was revealed to be the story of the rape and murder of a teenage girl :(
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Jonah »

That sounds awful. I never saw it on the big screen. I don't think I saw a Lynch on the big screen until "Mulholland Drive", and then "Inland Empire."
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Dalai Cooper »

Jonah wrote:
Dalai Cooper wrote:when I watched this in the cinema recently (only my 2nd time) the security camera scene seemed to be a very obvious echo of the finale, with a blank-faced (but increasingly panicked) cooper walking back and forth between a room and a corridor, and eventually being faced with a double of himself
Oh. Good point. Never thought of that. Nicely construed. I like that.
Thanks :) I don't think of myself as a particularly perceptive viewer, esp compared to the likes of LITM, but FWWM is a film that really opens itself up to you on a theatrical re-viewing. I really think it might be the skeleton key to lynch's entire career in a way.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by N. Needleman »

Jonah wrote:
Dalai Cooper wrote:when I watched this in the cinema recently (only my 2nd time) the security camera scene seemed to be a very obvious echo of the finale, with a blank-faced (but increasingly panicked) cooper walking back and forth between a room and a corridor, and eventually being faced with a double of himself
Oh. Good point. Never thought of that. Nicely construed. I like that.
You're absolutely right, and I never spotted it. Good catch.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Agent Sam Stanley »

Dalai Cooper wrote:btw this was amazing to see on the big screen but kinda horrible to see with an audience

somehow the (undeniably funny but also unheimlich) first half hour convinced the tittering rubes in the cinema that this was a comedy, and they persisted in reacting as such even after it was revealed to be the story of the rape and murder of a teenage girl :(
Thank you. I was pretty excited to watch FWWM for the first time on the big screen, but people's reactions to it really got on my nerves. I think the "Wash your hands" scene is pretty disturbing (When I was younger I didn't understand what Leland meant by 'dirty hands', but now that I do, it's a pretty disturbing thing to watch a father say to a daughter) and people couldn't stop laughing.
Same thing happened when I was watching The Shining last month, on a special presentation on the big screen. There was a girl behind me that wouldn't stop giggling at Jack Nicholson's faces.
Did the audiences became more stupid, or I'm the one who got too old?
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Dalai Cooper »

well, I'm afraid I can't be too mad at anyone who laughs at nicholson's mugging in the shining! I've come to realise (again, after a cinema rewatch) that I like that film more than I thought I did, but I still feel like JN's performance is a misstep (the intervening 35 years of nicholson schtick are probably colouring my view here too)
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by Agent Sam Stanley »

Dalai Cooper wrote:well, I'm afraid I can't be too mad at anyone who laughs at nicholson's mugging in the shining! I've come to realise (again, after a cinema rewatch) that I like that film more than I thought I did, but I still feel like JN's performance is a misstep (the intervening 35 years of nicholson schtick are probably colouring my view here too)
I think his performance is amazing, just don't think he was right for the role. He looks deranged since we first see him on screen. In fact, if I were Mr. Ullman I'd never hire him for the job. In the job interview he looks distant and weird. Maybe that was the card Kubrick wanted to use, but the idea was for Jack Torrance to be an average looking guy who loses his mind gradually after he starts living in the Overlook. I think Nicholson is anything but average looking.

Believe me, 35 years of Nicholson schtick was not the case here. The girl was laughing at everything. Jack screaming at his wife, chasing his son with an axe = goggles, giggles, giggles. It was pretty annoying. But like I said, maybe I'm getting old. I'm watching my movies at home more and more these days. But both FWWM and The Shining were movies I wanted to experience in the theater.
Last edited by Agent Sam Stanley on Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Dalai Cooper wrote:
Jonah wrote:
Dalai Cooper wrote:when I watched this in the cinema recently (only my 2nd time) the security camera scene seemed to be a very obvious echo of the finale, with a blank-faced (but increasingly panicked) cooper walking back and forth between a room and a corridor, and eventually being faced with a double of himself
Oh. Good point. Never thought of that. Nicely construed. I like that.
Thanks :) I don't think of myself as a particularly perceptive viewer, esp compared to the likes of LITM, but FWWM is a film that really opens itself up to you on a theatrical re-viewing. I really think it might be the skeleton key to lynch's entire career in a way.
Definitely the skeleton key (great term btw). As for being especially perceptive, probably more a matter of foregoing most other films/TV shows for a year and just exploring TP/FWWM over & over instead! I recently realized that for almost a full 6 months there were no non-Twin Peaks posts on my blog...

I have not yet seen Fire Walk With Me on a big screen (can't wait for that experience). So far, the only Lynch film I've seen in a theater is a retro screening of Mulholland Drive which is hard for me to believe. I hope that if/when TP 2016 happens a buch of Lynch's work is screened in L.A. and I'm able to attend.

Now that said, I HAVE seen Fire Walk With Me with an audience...last fall a library screened it (via DVD I think) for a small audience - most wearing costumes - following coffee and donuts. I got the sense than many, maybe most, had not see the film before. The librarian who organized the screening certainly hadn't - and she was pretty shaken, and almost apologetic, by the end!

My experience was somewhat similar in that the first half-hour had a live laugh track which continued well into the Laura sequence with its slow dissolves and long, dreamy stares (and of course "Gobble, gobble"). I started to get really nervous but fortunately when it got to Laura and Donna lying in the living room things quieted down. However, EVERY time anything supernatural occurred - even the little boy in the mask jumping around in the parking lot...uproarious laughter. It was like a release valve for all the psychologically intense stuff I guess.

It was hard to gauge the response afterwards (I think most people were somewhat bewildered/uncertain what they felt) but an acquaintance I ran into there, who mentioned beforehand that he hoped the film wasn't too disturbing because he had to stop the series at one point!, made it through the whole film and actually thought it was quite good so that was nice.

He won the costume party, incidentally, dressed as Pete Martell and carrying a coffee percolator with a plastic fish inside.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Agent Sam Stanley wrote:
Dalai Cooper wrote:well, I'm afraid I can't be too mad at anyone who laughs at nicholson's mugging in the shining! I've come to realise (again, after a cinema rewatch) that I like that film more than I thought I did, but I still feel like JN's performance is a misstep (the intervening 35 years of nicholson schtick are probably colouring my view here too)
I think his performance is amazing, just don't think he was right for the role. He looks deranged since we first see him on screen. In fact, if I were Mr. Ullman I'd never hire him for the job. In the job interview he looks distant and weird. Maybe that was the card Kubrick wanted to use, but the idea was for Jack Torrance to be an average normal looking guy who loses his mind gradually after he starts living in the Overlook. I think Nicholson is anything but average normal looking.

Believe me, 35 years of Nicholson schtick was not the case here. The girl was laughing at everything. Jack screaming at his wife, chasing his son with an axe. It was pretty annoying. But like I said, maybe I'm getting old. I'm watching my movies at home more and more these days. But both FWWM and The Shining were movies I wanted to experience in the theater.
See, I think Nicholson's performance is hilarious AND terrifying! And I love it (and the film) for that. I think Lynch often goes for/achieves a similar effect, just not in FWWM (other than maybe the Deer Meadow stuff which is definitely funny and a little spooky). I can see - maybe - how the "Wash Your Hands" speech could be darkly comic in theory but it doesn't play that way at all to me onscreen. Almost like Lynch and Engels wrote it to be a tense, creepy, nervous-laughter moment (think some of Frank's manic speeches in Blue Velvet, especially when visiting This Is It) but then Ly ch directed Wise and Lee to play it real instead of heightened.

Back to The Shining, again maybe it's perverse of me but I also like that Jack is so subtly deranged before he gets to the Overlook. That scene in the car especially, when he's telling Danny about the Donner Party and making all those weird faces. As for the intention behind it (if we wanna speculate about that and risk Room 237 territory!) maybe it's the idea that Jack ISN'T such a normal guy beforehand and that the hotel essentially releases his true nature: the violent aggression, impotent rage, narcissism and misogyny that's been there all along, barely buried in the outside world. After all, as Grady tells him, "you've ALWAYS been the caretaker..."

Ok, that's it, someone start a Shining thread in Hap's Diner. ;)
Post Reply