Worthiest Missing Piece?

[LonelySoul]

With the exception of fulfilling the series' promise that "Bobby killed a guy" and Laura knew about it, this scene doesn't feel necessary to me. Even though it's a fantastic Lynch/Lee/Ashbrook scene, I think this should have been a missing piece along with all the other elements related to Bobby's drug deal, the laxative, etc.

Don't forget that this scene also is connected with the prologue via the Deputy Cliff character.

True. To me this scene helped tie the Deer Meadow locality with Twin Peaks pretty nicely.

[p-air]

I always felt that it would have made a lot more "sense" and tied the first part of the movie together better if it had been Chet Desmond who materialized in the office raving about seeing Bob and the others. We just saw him disappear and presumably be taken to that world -- why wasn't it him who came back to tell us about it? Instead, it's some agent we have no other context for and who, distractingly, looks just like David Bowie. I think if they'd stayed with Chet the reaction might have been more positive instead of "what is David Bowie doing in this movie?"

Really interesting, never thought of it that way, yet for me it works as is. It’s almost like Jeffries is “standing in” for Chet the same way Chet is “standing in” for Coop. But in this case it’s done deliberately, and needlessly, rather than to cover for a missing actor - as if to say, all of this is intentional and all of these “investigators" are really just shadows of Cooper. The choice of Bowie in particular works well for me too in that sense as he functions as something of an ill-remembered Chris Isaak (musician).

All the recent talk of the Truman recast has really got me thinking about how DL may have felt his way through the situation with Kyle Maclachlan and FWWM. Lynch must have been so determined to film those scenes which he’d written for Cooper, that perhaps when Kyle initially bowed out and Lynch could neither bear to cut the scenes nor recast the role, the realization arose that a “shadow” Cooper (Chet) would need to be the one to guide us through a “shadow” Twin Peaks (Deer Meadow). In the case of Truman, while I’m not expecting the same kind of thing really - it sounds to me like an outright recast - I get the sense that Lynch is following his intuition once again with Robert Forster. He’s obviously wanted to cast Forster as a cop for years, and he associates Forster with his original conception of Truman, so when Michael Ontkean dropped out maybe DL figured the third time’s a charm and took it as a sign.

[BlackMoonLilith]

A couple things about Jeffries/Chet:

1. I think a big part of why the scene works is the audience is disoriented by this guy. This doesn't work if it's the guy we've been watching for 30 minutes. Suddenly, we're in his POV, instead of Cooper's and Cole's and Albert's. The scene doesn't work as much, as what we have is an identification figure turned crazed instead of a crazed mystic entering the narrative.

2. "We just saw him disappear" - no, we didn't. The CAMERA fades to black on a freeze frame of him almost but not quite touching the ring. The whole notion that he disappeared came about through editing. Notice how OBVIOUSLY dubbed it is into the scene: Albert with the phone: "I've got the front desk now, he was never here," Albert not on camera, "And news from Deer Meadow; Chet Desmond has disappeared!" Same with "And where is Chester Desmond?" This was originally meant to be contemporaneous with the Laura scenes, as evidenced by Bowie saying "1989?!" in the Missing Pieces.

[LostInTheMovies]

What a great thread this is evolving into! (Even if it does go way off-topic haha.) Some responses to the above:

As much as I enjoy the Desmond/Stanley/Jeffries scenes and the Teresa Banks investigation in Deer Meadow, I think a strong case could've been made to ignore all that and just focus on telling the Laura Palmer story, since that was clearly Lynch's passion for this film.

It's interesting, though, that some first-time viewers see this sequence setting up the central question of the film as, "Who killed Teresa Banks?" Learning that Leland did it is tied into the realization that Leland is Bob and that he is abusing Laura; it is a way of giving what is essential a psychological horror film a mystery hook. That said, Lynch sort of buries his lede by sneaking in (and drowning out) the dialogue about Teresa blackmailing someone, and cutting short Leland's flashback so that we can only grasp a few threads and piece it together ourselves.

In that sense, perhaps the only Missing Pieces that really strengthen the film are the additional Teresa flashbacks (primarily the one where she calls Jacques and Leland). I especially like the shot of her playing with her ring before picking up the phone again: the idea that somehow this ring signifies or is playing a part in the shift of power towards her and away from Leland.

That said, I think he knew that what most fans wanted was more Dale Cooper and if he had even less of a role or none at all, it would've been an even harder sell. But it would've left more time to explore her relationships with other characters in the town and make it feel just a little bit more like the Twin Peaks of the show as well as providing a contrast to what life becomes for the town without her. I could see a scene where Hawk pulls her over for speeding, for example, but she charms him out of the ticket. Or a session with Josie coming on to her. And I know there were reasons why the Hornes didn't reprise their roles, but I feel Ben was sorely needed, given how significant he was to her downward spiral.

This is true but I think Lynch was in an either/or situation with Laura's story. Either he make it about her relationship with the community, or he leaves her isolated and plays the story out claustrophobically in her head, only allowing room for a close circle of friends, lovers, and family (with quick cameos by the Log Lady and Harold; Norma & Shelly are mostly in their own world, and Shelly is probably only in it because Lynch has a thing for Madchen Amick). Obviously Lynch went with the latter plan and it doesn't seem like more time would have made a difference in that regard. It's probably significant that even in the script she doesn't seem to have much interaction with the various townspeople: only the Haywards and Ben are added to the mix.

WHAT I WOULD LOSE: I actually would tighten the opening section because Chris Isaak's somnambulent performance really pains me.
And when the movie cuts to the Laura Palmer section, I'd cut any scene not experienced from her point of view or Leland's. The weird bit where we see Shelly on the kitchen floor is lame (badly directed, her hair doesn't match, etc. - also, maybe even the moment with Peggy and Shelly talking in the diner...this way you really get a sense of how isolated Laura was IN the world of Twin Peaks - it's like no one else existed...

Yeah, as I said above I think both those are in due to his Madchen crush and nothing more!

I'm going to say something others may not like, but watching the Missing Pieces actually made me appreciate how brilliantly FWWM was rescued and saved by further editing...

I agree completely (although I actually enjoy watching the Missing Pieces as their own thing, like a collection of short stories next to a novel). The 22-year-old myth that FWWM needed to be 3 1/2 or 4 hours to truly do what it was going for, and that the finished film was an extremely compromised version of that masterpiece, is just that, a myth.

I love Chris Isaak's performance because he is so aloof, cool, slick and yes, at times wooden. Chet Desmond is the classical squarejawed FBI hero, and he gets taken away by the Lodge like it's nothing. It's debatable how Lynch may see him, too - I know Lost's video essay posits him as "kind of a dick" for making Sam spill his coffee, and I think there is a physicality and quick violence to him that indicates something, too. I don't think that prank, or the fight with Sheriff Cable, are things Dale Cooper would do. I find the character and that whole prologue fascinating. Desmond is a skilled investigator, probing, relentless and very curious, but IMO I come away with the impression that its his conventional masculine daring and somewhat brutal straightforwardness that makes him vulnerable, the wrong man for the job.

I think so too, but I think I've also read somewhere that Coop was originally scripted to do all the things Chet seems. Which is certainly odd (although vaguely consistent I guess with the idea that there is something "off" about Cooper in this movie - as James has suggested - even though he seems cold in FWWM, but not a jerk). It's almost one of those infamous Lynch situations where "it was always meant to be ____, even when it wasn't..."

With the exception of fulfilling the series' promise that "Bobby killed a guy" and Laura knew about it, this scene doesn't feel necessary to me. Even though it's a fantastic Lynch/Lee/Ashbrook scene, I think this should have been a missing piece along with all the other elements related to Bobby's drug deal, the laxative, etc.

That's fair. I like the scene a lot and I also appreciate how it gives us a bit of relief before the brutal intensification of the following material, which just never lets up till the end - yet the relief still feels in character (unlike, say, a scene of Andy and Lucy clowning around at the sheriff's station) since it involves a gruesome murder. Even the lighter material in this movie is dark as fuck haha...

Don't forget that this scene also is connected with the prologue via the Deputy Cliff character.

True. To me this scene helped tie the Deer Meadow locality with Twin Peaks pretty nicely.

Yeah - it's such an odd link, though! Like it doesn't actually tie the two sections together in any thematically significant way that I can gather, it's just more like a fun Easter egg for those of us paying attention (I feel like I saw the movie a few times before I caught on, though I'm not sure).

2. "We just saw him disappear" - no, we didn't. The CAMERA fades to black on a freeze frame of him almost but not quite touching the ring. The whole notion that he disappeared came about through editing. Notice how OBVIOUSLY dubbed it is into the scene: Albert with the phone: "I've got the front desk now, he was never here," Albert not on camera, "And news from Deer Meadow; Chet Desmond has disappeared!" Same with "And where is Chester Desmond?" This was originally meant to be contemporaneous with the Laura scenes, as evidenced by Bowie saying "1989?!" in the Missing Pieces.

This, a thousand times over. It's really interesting to consider the way Lynch ret-conned this movie in the actual process of making it! This is just one of the most obvious examples.

EDIT: Hmm, as squealy points out below, and I had forgotten, the script does say "he disappears." Strange that Lynch showed it the way he did, which does make it seem more like it was a decision reached in editing (because of the ways to show someone disappear, freeze frame and fade to black isn't very high on the list), although it obviously wasn't.

[squealy]

2. "We just saw him disappear" - no, we didn't. The CAMERA fades to black on a freeze frame of him almost but not quite touching the ring. The whole notion that he disappeared came about through editing. Notice how OBVIOUSLY dubbed it is into the scene: Albert with the phone: "I've got the front desk now, he was never here," Albert not on camera, "And news from Deer Meadow; Chet Desmond has disappeared!" Same with "And where is Chester Desmond?" This was originally meant to be contemporaneous with the Laura scenes, as evidenced by Bowie saying "1989?!" in the Missing Pieces.

You're hairsplitting. Regardless of whether they moved the Philip Jeffries scene, Desmond disappears prior to it in both script and finished movie. All they did was place it before Cooper's investigation of said disappearance rather than after. We may not absolutely know for sure that he's disappeared until Albert's line but it was already clear that something terrible had happened to him.

1. I think a big part of why the scene works is the audience is disoriented by this guy. This doesn't work if it's the guy we've been watching for 30 minutes. Suddenly, we're in his POV, instead of Cooper's and Cole's and Albert's. The scene doesn't work as much, as what we have is an identification figure turned crazed instead of a crazed mystic entering the narrative.

I'm more inclined to follow the law of economy of characters. Do we need a second lost agent when there already is one? Especially one played by David Bowie with a terrible southern accent? It's Desmond whose fate we're curious about after the preceding scene... yes it's disorienting but I think having David Bowie walk into a scene out of nowhere contributed to the critical consensus that the movie was indulgent and nonsensical.

[p-air]

I think having David Bowie walk into a scene out of nowhere contributed to the critical consensus that the movie was indulgent and nonsensical.

I definitely agree, and found it frustrating and confusing myself on the first viewing (and Chet walking into the scene instead would have "fixed" that) yet after multiple viewings I still much prefer it as is for the additional layers of meaning and intrigue. And a lot of "cameos" in David Lynch's films could seem similarly off-putting but I think there's something deliberate about the way he's used brief flashes of character actors like Dan Hedaya and William H Macy to tap into Hollywood archetypes (and "rock" archetypes, here and in Lost Highway).

[N. Needleman]

I will never not support David Bowie.

[LostInTheMovies]

I think having David Bowie walk into a scene out of nowhere contributed to the critical consensus that the movie was indulgent and nonsensical.

I definitely agree, and found it frustrating and confusing myself on the first viewing (and Chet walking into the scene instead would have "fixed" that) yet after multiple viewings I still much prefer it as is for the additional layers of meaning and intrigue. And a lot of "cameos" in David Lynch's films could seem similarly off-putting but I think there's something deliberate about the way he's used brief flashes of character actors like Dan Hedaya and William H Macy to tap into Hollywood archetypes (and "rock" archetypes, here and in Lost Highway).

Good examples here. Another memorable one is Crispin Glover in Wild at Heart.

[BlackMoonLilith]

I'm more inclined to follow the law of economy of characters. Do we need a second lost agent when there already is one? Especially one played by David Bowie with a terrible southern accent? It's Desmond whose fate we're curious about after the preceding scene... yes it's disorienting but I think having David Bowie walk into a scene out of nowhere contributed to the critical consensus that the movie was indulgent and nonsensical.

Horses for courses, of course. I thought it was one of the best scenes in a great movie. *shrugs* I actually really prefer the FWWM version to the Missing Pieces' separated Jeffries and convenience store scenes, which have some cool bits I suppose, but the way the convenience store footage plays out with Jeffries' dialogue towards Cooper/Lynch/Albert overlapped on top in the audio and the FWWM theme playing in the background is just such a brilliantly disorienting yet captivating final product. It better fits the idea of a phantasm appearing out of thin air than the Missing Pieces' much slower, much more explained variation.

[Jonah]

I'm going to add the Theresa on the phone to Leland scene at the motel to "worthiest" piece - perhaps even trumping the Hayward/Laura/angel foreshadowing, which is my favourite scene - but narratively, Theresa on the phone would have - as someone else said - made things a lot clearer. Also, in the UK at least, for many years, the only video version of FWWM didn't have the scene in the pink room subtitled so we had no idea what was being said or going on!

[Agent Sam Stanley]

I think there are several worthy scenes, not everything but there's a lot of amazing stuff in the MP, that's why I'm making my own fanedit of FWWM.
As much as I think Q2 did a wonderful job with his/hers, I don't think ALL scenes should be added back in the film. Many of them add nothing to the plot and kill the pacing. Of course, which scenes should or should not be included are very debatable, maybe that's why he/she added the whole thing so we could have the most complete extended cut.
I'm making something more to myself, so I'm choosing specific scenes that I like and sometimes only portions of scenes. One example is the Palmer dinner scene with the Norwegian talk, I think the laughing fit at the end is too out there and looks weird in the context of the film. It works as a separate scene but I don't like it in the film. I think the idea of that scene is to show a normal family dinner to contrast with the disturbing "wash your hands" scene. That hysterial laughing fit makes them look crazy and far from normal. So when "wash your hands" comes, "yeah, they're not very normal to begin with, I can see the dad having weird mood swings".
Of course, like I said this is very debatable. I believe many fans think the laughing fit is brilliant and couldn't imagine someone cutting that out. Maybe Q2 thought the same thing. That's why I'm making a personal cut for myself, but will gladly share it with those interested when it's done.

[Mordeen]

Bowie as Jeffries showed up and doubled down on Cole's Blue Rose fixation. It added multiple layers of intrigue/mystery. Judy. The masked monkey called out her name. I felt this was a path Lynch wanted to follow with his ill-fated trilogy. The Missing Pieces version of the convenience store scene demonstrated that the Lodges/Waiting Room/Convenience Store are inside and out of our fabric of reality, and Bob is the master of that fabric. Nothing Lynch does is gratuitous or forced, IMO. At least when he's in creative control.

-Mordeen

[StealThisCorn]

It's interesting, though, that some first-time viewers see this sequence setting up the central question of the film as, "Who killed Teresa Banks?" Learning that Leland did it is tied into the realization that Leland is Bob and that he is abusing Laura; it is a way of giving what is essential a psychological horror film a mystery hook. That said, Lynch sort of buries his lede by sneaking in (and drowning out) the dialogue about Teresa blackmailing someone, and cutting short Leland's flashback so that we can only grasp a few threads and piece it together ourselves.

But to veteran viewers, Teresa Banks was insignificant. Initially created in the Pilot presumably just to justify calling the mystery murderer a "serial killer", in the course of the series we learn that Laura is not just another victim but special because BOB wanted her. In the context of the whole story, we get no hints that BOB wanted Teresa like that. She appears to be just another victim to sate his appetite, presumably along with a lot of other dead girls (Ronette would've been one, Maddy was, and an unidentified E victim presumably, assuming that wasn't just one cycle among many going through TREBOR letters under the fingernail with Leland and possibly even unnamed hosts before him like Robertson?). Teresa only takes on significant because of the way the Ring ties her in with the mystery in ways that the show never anticipated.

I think the "mystery" of the film could've just as easily been "what is happening to this poor young girl's mind?" Are the fucked up things she's seeing and experiencing real or is she going crazy? It's not really a mystery when we already know that Leland/BOB killed Teresa from the information provided int the series, anymore than who killed Laura Palmer was a mystery anymore by the time the film was released (though Lynch still found creative way to play with that concept, defying expectations set by the series--such as the "I always thought you knew it was me!" line).

Ultimately, I love the film as is but if I was thinking like a purist, I think a case could be made to remove the first half that divides FWWM into two very different parts and further explore Laura.

[LostInTheMovies]

It's interesting, though, that some first-time viewers see this sequence setting up the central question of the film as, "Who killed Teresa Banks?" Learning that Leland did it is tied into the realization that Leland is Bob and that he is abusing Laura; it is a way of giving what is essential a psychological horror film a mystery hook. That said, Lynch sort of buries his lede by sneaking in (and drowning out) the dialogue about Teresa blackmailing someone, and cutting short Leland's flashback so that we can only grasp a few threads and piece it together ourselves.

But to veteran viewers, Teresa Banks was insignificant. Initially created in the Pilot presumably just to justify calling the mystery murderer a "serial killer", in the course of the series we learn that Laura is not just another victim but special because BOB wanted her. In the context of the whole story, we get no hints that BOB wanted Teresa like that. She appears to be just another victim to sate his appetite, presumably along with a lot of other dead girls (Ronette would've been one, Maddy was, and an unidentified E victim presumably, assuming that wasn't just one cycle among many going through TREBOR letters under the fingernail with Leland and possibly even unnamed hosts before him like Robertson?). Teresa only takes on significant because of the way the Ring ties her in with the mystery in ways that the show never anticipated.

I think the "mystery" of the film could've just as easily been "what is happening to this poor young girl's mind?" Are the fucked up things she's seeing and experiencing real or is she going crazy? It's not really a mystery when we already know that Leland/BOB killed Teresa from the information provided int the series, anymore than who killed Laura Palmer was a mystery anymore by the time the film was released (though Lynch still found creative way to play with that concept, defying expectations set by the series--such as the "I always thought you knew it was me!" line).

Ultimately, I love the film as is but if I was thinking like a purist, I think a case could be made to remove the first half that divides FWWM into two very different parts and further explore Laura.

Oh I agree in a sense (and I think that's what I wanted the first time).

To make a contrary argument to the one I just made, maybe Teresa actually is more important for the veteran viewer than the newcomer who, as you point out, wouldn't know Teresa was missing if she wasn't in the film. On the other hand, series viewers are aware of Bob as a serial murderer. Including Teresa, and establishing her murder as a consequence of Leland's personal paranoia rather than just Bob's random bloodlust, suddenly grounds Leland/Bob's actions in the mundane rather than the supernatural, opening up the possibility that Leland's crimes are his own as while as an evil demon's. Obviously the movie already does this in several ways but this is a particular ingenious method. The critic Tony Dayoub made this point rather well: in a sense, Teresa is the key to the entire "realistic" portion of the story (even if the ring also links her to the supernatural).

[Johnny Tabasco]

If it was up to me, I'd put back in the Hayward house and the scene under the fan. And possibly Desmond's fight with Cable, which is incredibly well-shot and pays that little subplot off, and perhaps Coop's brief scene with Sam Stanley.

Maybe I'd put the Norwegian dinner scene back in. I'm on the fence. It does give a different kind of introduction to Leland. Isn't it before Laura finds the pages have been torn out? I'd also debate putting back in the extended convenience store sequence, which I think is absolutely incredible and spellbinding, but in the end I find that within the context of the film itself the final cut's version works better. I frankly would not be shocked to see elements of that sequence turn up in the new series, partially as a farewell to Frank Silva. (There's also a precedent for it - it's what they did to the European pilot ending.)

I can't remember everything, but I think that's all. The rest is either extraneous, or IMO, not relevant. The stuff with the townsfolk, all beautiful, wonderful scenes, especially Peggy Lipton's stuff, but do they belong in Laura's movie - I say no.

I agree, that is so well filmed. However its far too long, and sadly its clear why it was cut. As someone else has said the Sam Stanley/Cooper scene is interesting, that certainly was worthy of inclusion. But im a sucker for anything Deer Meadow.

Also agree about the Norma and and Ed car scene, i think thats wonderful. Though clearly not a crucial piece of filming. The way the music works in theat scene is perfect. Id certainly put the muffin scene in, and perhaps the full version of Bobbys basement too.

Incidentally anyone else see the creature run across the path whilst Bobby is testing the coke at the car ? Before he throws it everywhere. Actually I suspect its been discussed fully...