LostInTheMovies wrote:kingsoprano718 wrote:Here's a point I am not sure anyone has made yet. Did we always just assume a 2nd or 3rd film was not made because of how the movie did? Because if the plan was to go three why was the decision made during editing to remove the Annie and is it past scenes that were shot specifically to set up the next movie. One has to think a decision was made in the editing room to not include these crucial scenes as they only take up a few minutes of the run time. Why were they removed if sequels were planned up until release date?
This is a good question. It's as if, subconsciously if nothing else, Lynch and Sweeney (I would love to know what role she played in nudging him towards this) finally realized that they were completing a story, the story of Laura's journey, rather than keeping a longer one going. But in dramatic/narrative terms having Cooper and Annie in there would have just seemed really distracting after the film's harrowing conclusion. Just wouldn't have worked.
I also suspect, especially after watching the Moving Through Time documentary, that the level of Sheryl Lee's performance was really unexpected and had a hand in re-orienting the material around her (and perhaps to great inclusion of the angels and the ring as a positive feature, which were added pretty late in the game - during production I believe, though Wrapped in Plastic editor believes the latter was actually improvised through pick-up shots in post).
Interesting points! I do think the Annie/ Cooper post-series shots could have been included, as long as they were kept mysterious and given a pretty dreamy feel - moreso than the way in which they're presented in the blu-ray. Even adding a bit of the static effect that we get in FWWM, or similar. I do think the scenes of Annie and Cooper do tie in with the harrowing end for Laura, in fact. Then we could return to the red room and the ending we have in FWWM.
Whilst I agree quite a bit with you about Sheryl Lee as Laura, I would say that her performance is not perhaps too subtle. Only somewhat in the scene where she looks to the Angel painting and asks 'is it true' do I see the acting broadening out into something more complex. Otherwise, we mostly see Laura strung out on drugs, drunk, terrified or traumatised. Not that any of that is not to be expected! Also, bearing in mind that Laura is supposed to be 17, I wouldn't expect her to be acting all that differently to how we see. But, this is maybe a stupid question, but does she ever really look convincingly 17 years old?