Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

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

User avatar
Nighthawk
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 am

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Nighthawk » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:15 pm

Coopergänger wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:
Coopergänger wrote:Yes it's there, my friend... There's a change between two different layers on the entire background. I replayed the moment over and over last night. Big TV, best quality as possible. Trust me.


Do you have any visual evidence of that?
Check out the episode itself. Big TV, best quality. It's IMPOSSIBLE to see that on a simple gif or low hd vids.

But it's THERE.


I have seen it in high resolution, that's why I saw the reflection moving independent of Ed in the first place. The only thing that was edited in this scene is Ed's mirror image. He is completely stationary and a a car drives by in a completely natural way.
User avatar
BigEd
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby BigEd » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:45 pm

Walterodim wrote:
BigEd wrote:
Walterodim wrote:Oh my. The Big Ed reflection is a real thing :) Just watched the video on Reddit.
First time I watched it I didn't even noticed a reflection., but it definitely is there and pretty disturbing.


Can you post a link? I went to Reddit and couldn't easily locate it in the subredit topics. I didn't dig too deep because a) I didn't want to encounter part 14 spoilers and b) it's reddit and it historically has provided much more irritation than entertainment. Thanks! 8)


Here is the link to reddit


Thank you. Regardless of peoples' opinions of this, at least that link allows everybody to see what is being discussed. 8)
User avatar
BigEd
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby BigEd » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:49 pm

Dreamy Audrey wrote:
whoisalhedges wrote:I think there have been some mistakes. Miriam's last name on the letter? The crew said that was a prop error. Serendipitously, it worked - but we were told it was a mistake. I'm sure there have been others.

Has that ever been officially confirmed, though? As far as I know someone tweeted it had been confirmed, but there was never an official source.


I asked earlier for a source, and have yet to see any tangible evidence that a crew member confirmed an error. I think it was specifically there to give us hope that Mirriam's letter would make it to the Sheriff so that they would pursue Richard (which of course they have). I am now curious what Ms. Hodges was writing to them about. :lol:
User avatar
DeepBlueSeed
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:32 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby DeepBlueSeed » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:52 pm

I've been absent from the board this week, mostly because of summer holiday stuff with my kids. As such I'm going to just nip in and say I really enjoyed the 13th part, with it really feeling like a start to an Act 3. The fact we didn't see the FBI head straight to Vegas is making me suspect we won't now see old Cooper awaken til near the very end now. But in the one day before part 14 airs I figure I might have just enough time to pick through the 64 pages of comments here, to see what details I missed, and hopefully hit the ground running on Monday morning. :-)
"The stories that I wanna tell you about... "
User avatar
Coopergänger
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:19 am
Contact:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Coopergänger » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:02 pm

Nighthawk wrote:
Coopergänger wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:http://www.dugpa.com/forum/ucp.php?i=ucp_notifications

Do you have any visual evidence of that?
Check out the episode itself. Big TV, best quality. It's IMPOSSIBLE to see that on a simple gif or low hd vids.

But it's THERE.


I have seen it in high resolution, that's why I saw the reflection moving independent of Ed in the first place.

Of course, because the glitch on Ed's movement is the most obvious thing for the eye. The background layer effect I'm talking about it's only perceptible when you are looking carefuly for something on the shot. I saw that only when I knew about Ed's glitch and I was looking the shot very carefuly. And as I am an illustrator I am so used to work with Photoshop layers, so this subtle but ugly shift effect of two layers that are not 100% correctly superposed is very familiar to me. Look for it and you will find it.

So my conclusion is that part of the frame of this shot (just the background, not Ed's back) is edited with two different takes, each one of them with a car passing by. That's why there's a glitch on Ed's reflection movements: that's the moment when the second background layer subtitutes the first one. I think this is very common today.

BUT the most mysterious part of this... is that neither the first background layer nor the second one match with Ed's movements as we see him from behind ;-)


PS: sorry for my english, folks.
LateReg
Posts: 476
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby LateReg » Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:48 pm

Coopergänger wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:
Coopergänger wrote:Check out the episode itself. Big TV, best quality. It's IMPOSSIBLE to see that on a simple gif or low hd vids.

But it's THERE.


I have seen it in high resolution, that's why I saw the reflection moving independent of Ed in the first place.

Of course, because the glitch on Ed's movement is the most obvious thing for the eye. The background layer effect I'm talking about it's only perceptible when you are looking carefuly for something on the shot. I saw that only when I knew about Ed's glitch and I was looking the shot very carefuly. And as I am an illustrator I am so used to work with Photoshop layers, so this subtle but ugly shift effect of two layers that are not 100% correctly superposed is very familiar to me. Look for it and you will find it.

So my conclusion is that part of the frame of this shot (just the background, not Ed's back) is edited with two different takes, each one of them with a car passing by. That's why there's a glitch on Ed's reflection movements: that's the moment when the second background layer subtitutes the first one. I think this is very common today.

BUT the most mysterious part of this... is that neither the first background layer nor the second one match with Ed's movements as we see him from behind ;-)


PS: sorry for my english, folks.


Why is Ed's reflection only in that portion of the shot? And not while the credits are rolling?
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:07 pm

Coopergänger wrote:
Nighthawk wrote:
Coopergänger wrote:Check out the episode itself. Big TV, best quality. It's IMPOSSIBLE to see that on a simple gif or low hd vids.

But it's THERE.


I have seen it in high resolution, that's why I saw the reflection moving independent of Ed in the first place.

Of course, because the glitch on Ed's movement is the most obvious thing for the eye. The background layer effect I'm talking about it's only perceptible when you are looking carefuly for something on the shot. I saw that only when I knew about Ed's glitch and I was looking the shot very carefuly. And as I am an illustrator I am so used to work with Photoshop layers, so this subtle but ugly shift effect of two layers that are not 100% correctly superposed is very familiar to me. Look for it and you will find it.

So my conclusion is that part of the frame of this shot (just the background, not Ed's back) is edited with two different takes, each one of them with a car passing by. That's why there's a glitch on Ed's reflection movements: that's the moment when the second background layer subtitutes the first one. I think this is very common today.

BUT the most mysterious part of this... is that neither the first background layer nor the second one match with Ed's movements as we see him from behind ;-)


PS: sorry for my english, folks.


What I see is Ed staring at the window. Then his reflections tilts up his head, then it glitches. Everything else, from the wavy flag to the bugs top right seem consistent to me. I rewatched it like 100 times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Major Briggs
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Major Briggs » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:13 pm

It's not like we haven't seen any weird editing choices in this season (Richard's hand, Candie's presence when the Mitchums are beating the casino guy). Why is this reflection such a big deal?
User avatar
Ragnell
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 5:50 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Ragnell » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:29 pm

Major Briggs wrote:It's not like we haven't seen any weird editing choices in this season (Richard's hand, Candie's presence when the Mitchums are beating the casino guy). Why is this reflection such a big deal?


See pages 50 to 61, and perhaps a few earlier, for an in-depth discussion on not only the reflection but the worth of discussing the strange editing choices and theories about time to begin with.
User avatar
Novalis
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Novalis » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:46 pm

Coopergänger wrote: The background layer effect I'm talking about it's only perceptible when you are looking carefuly for something on the shot. I saw that only when I knew about Ed's glitch and I was looking the shot very carefuly.


I saw it as it unfolded, on the night it screened and before I read any posts about it. Admittedly, by the end of the episode I was half-asleep (it was nigh-on 3am in the UK) and my focus was drifting into the middle-distance of the screen. But perhaps because I was watching in a pitch-black room and my eyes were centred on the screen rather than focused on the foreground (i.e. on the window where Ed is himself gazing, rather than the back of Ed's head), I caught the 'glitch' as it happened. Initially I thought it was a buffering error and thought no more of it. Then the following day I saw that others had caught it too and had posted about it on reddit.

The point is, if you had to have been prospectively looking for it to see it, then no one would have seen it, because I'm pretty sure no one stares intently at every part of the screen for the whole duration of each part, live. On rewatches I've actually found it harder to see, because I was watching in well-lit rooms. But in the darkness, the original experience is very easy to replicate; it's not hard to see at all, and in terms of what little dramatic action surrounds the occurrence it seems to be something the eye is being led to. We are positioned on Ed's shoulder, sharing his gaze, and morosely we stare out of the window as the lights of cars pass by. That window is the only place where the eye is directed towards in that shot. And there it is.

As I've said before in this thread, whether it's motivated or not doesn't really matter to me -- whether it is an intentionally representative and diegetic phenomenon or an accident of editing, it still signifies when it comes to talking about The Return as a whole, including the way it is directed and produced (and not just in terms of its story).

My personal feeling is that if it is a genuine error of some kind, then someone on the production team would have spotted it. It was glaringly obvious to me, at 3am, and I wasn't looking out for bad editing. I feel that if it was left in after that point, particularly if this decision was sanctioned by the director, then it holds more significance. It wouldn't be the first time non-diegetic material crept into an edit and was then, through ad-hoc creativity, incorporated into the diegetic.

If that is indeed the case, it would be no surprise. Such serendipitous accidents forms part of Lynch's creative methodology (and in his worldview there appear to be no such things as pure contingencies -- no accidents as such, just the interlocking intricacies of karma), just as chance plays a large part in Dadaism. This kind of artistic idiom can get interestingly Nietzschean: the way to deal with wild contingencies, the vicissitudes and graininess of existence, is to claim that one (or one's unconscious, 'better', 'bigger', mind) had intended it all along. One retroactively wills the accident, incorporates it into one's creative plan. Thus what might have remained as a meaningless intrusion or inessential error is transformed into a necessary, essential and meaningful component of the whole. Lynch doesn't talk about this much, especially in formal philosophical terms, but he practices it a lot of the time (as can be seen in The Art Life and read about in Nochimson's Passion of as well as in numerous oral histories of the filming of his movies by cast and crew).

So, for me, even if the glitch only ultimately ramifies tonally, in terms of increasing the obscurity of Ed's interface with an outside world (beyond the window of his gas station) he is really struggling to make connections in -- and is otherwise meaningless in terms of plot -- it still ramifies.

If a production team member confirms tomorrow that it is an error that should have been caught but wasn't, I will stop wearing glasses, delete this post and watch the rest of Twin Peaks on a cellphone. :lol: But I will still regard this error as significant in itself, since all errors are bearers of information. I will write it up as as one of the things that made Twin Peaks great to participate in, part of the unnerving indeterminacy: the 'was that intentional or not?' factor.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
Major Briggs
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Major Briggs » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:47 pm

Ragnell wrote:
Major Briggs wrote:It's not like we haven't seen any weird editing choices in this season (Richard's hand, Candie's presence when the Mitchums are beating the casino guy). Why is this reflection such a big deal?


See pages 50 to 61, and perhaps a few earlier, for an in-depth discussion on not only the reflection but the worth of discussing the strange editing choices and theories about time to begin with.


*facepalm*

If you wanna be disappointed when it's never brought up, be my guest.
User avatar
referendum
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby referendum » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:52 pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)
postby Novalis » Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:46 am


YES
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
Kraps
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:56 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Kraps » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:05 pm

Wonderful last scene in a wonderful episode! Masterfully set up and executed. It's like silent musical number about loneliness.

About that damn glitch - it's definitely noticeable and it seems intentional. Along with Sarah's looped tv it reminded me of trembling hands in season 2. After 63 pages (phew!) I'm surprised nobody made that connection :)
User avatar
Rudagger
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby Rudagger » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:16 pm

TIL Brian DePalma showing up in the mirror in the club scene in Scarface was actually an intentional thematic hint toward the entire's story's artifice, suggesting that Montana's life was but a mere pawn in the game of a director. The mirror's signified the disparate factions of filmmaking, and DePalma used that in order to allow himself and Montana to appear as cohorts in a cross-reality epoch.

OR, he just ended up in the shot by accident, was probably seen in editing but decided too trivial an error to fix.

Now, with Peaks, is Ed's broken reflection a time distortion alternate reality doppelgänger staring back in to the soul, and this is expressed through a a reflection of a man drinking soup, despite Lynch's hall makers being the opposite of subtle (.. sort of like the Sarah Palmer scene in the same episode with a very jarring and obvious effect). Or did the After Effects composition get screwed up on export, and not fixed before the final print headed out?

Occam's razor. I spent four years in film school (la di da), which had both a theory and production element. And for every critical reading of a film in theory where people read unintended errors as a way of propagating the message, you had a mistake on set that ended up in a short film completely unintentionally and would've been entirely unrelated to theme or tone of the short.

Now, I know, I know, death of the author and all that, but, I don't think people here fully understand how much compromise, and how much fighting with the material, one has to do in editing. Things get missed, shots get re-used out of necessity, footage is missing and needs to be worked around, scenes get shuffled around to find the right pacing, effects can fail, etc. etc. The thing I love about Lynch is his almost stream of consciousness style of filmmaking, he's not afraid to just shoot things as they come to him and not self-edit himself. He canonized the Frank Silva error into the text of Peaks, which, to Lynch's benefit seems to have made his fans read every error or mistake as intentional, and it's frankly a little off-putting. Lynch, like almost all filmmakers, is flawed. I always got the impression that where Kubrick had an insane attention of detail to *everything*, Lynch has had more of a loose focus on the wider picture, but, zeroing in on very specific sequences (something like the painstaking near-Stan Brakhage cutting style Episode 8 sequence, versus less visually spectacular, but purely functional effects, such as Gordon opening a door up to a scene from the original series).

I love the new Twin Peaks. It might be my favourite work of his. But, it is far less consistent visually than something like Mulholland Drive; as it should be, this is 18 hours and that was 2.5. One can't put nearly as much attention into every single aspect in the way he did on shorter works. I just worry people are putting Lynch on such a high pedestal that they're in for massive disappointment if it turns out that a mistake was just a mistake, Frost wanted to disregard continuity in Secret History, and there isn't any alternate timeline shenanigans that is going to crop up in the last 5 hours of the show. But, I say that fully knowing that, hey, who knows, *maybe*. But, I'm skeptical. And I can't take these errors as trying to say anything, because, by that logic, we should be in for a bunch of doppelgängers, including Hawk and Sonny Jim, given the use of reversed footage (which couldn't possibly be for any reason other than trying to subliminally tell us plot .. as opposed to just an editorial decision made due to timing/blocking/stretching footage/etc.).

Then again, I think people might be going a bit batty in the wait for Episode 14 (like I am).
User avatar
BigEd
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Part 13 - What story is that, Charlie? (SPOILERS)

Postby BigEd » Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:33 pm

Kraps wrote:Wonderful last scene in a wonderful episode! Masterfully set up and executed. It's like silent musical number about loneliness.

About that damn glitch - it's definitely noticeable and it seems intentional. Along with Sarah's looped tv it reminded me of trembling hands in season 2. After 63 pages (phew!) I'm surprised nobody made that connection :)


I think somebody did. Sound like you need to re-read those 63 pages! :lol:

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests