MichaelPW wrote:Oh, the great "three-o-clock"-scene. Ok, now I know who Gordy is. I didn`t know that he and the person in the shed are the same person. First one is one of the strangest ones. Are you sure that it is in California? Couldn`t it be in Poland? Maybe the word I'm seeking is somehow like "subconsciousness"-scene. Somehow this whole scene is like "viewing it from a perspective of a baby". We have toys in the background. We have spilling. We have "Come here...and get some hotdogs" - isn`t an adult speech, is it? We have a problem with going to the toilet. There`s an infantile quarrel about the hammer (not screwdriver). One brought along his toy: the rope. There`s this strangely artificially beginning of the two female ones for getting food. And we have three-o-clock (when we regard midnight as end of life - three-o-clock is relatively early in the life span). Also the boss brought along his toy: his cap. Maybe he is just playing boss. On the other side we have very serious "adult" themes. Like that there`s something not ok with three-o-clock. The rope could be regarded as intestines out of the body. The hammer could be used as a murder-weapon. But maybe we are at the beginning of life. "An adult mean" is maybe a screwdriver or a gun. The cap could represent dictatorship. And the music is just like "here we are in subconsiousness-areas".
Well, I never noticed all that but what you say is a true description. I'll have to think about that childhood aspect and see if anything else comes to mind.
Yes, I think it is in California, but it is a bizarre, exaggerated version of Americans in California dreamed by Lost Girl, which is why she shows up in the middle of everything as Queen Kelly talking about her dream. I don't watch television at all but whenever I see it in someone else's house, it looks like that to me. The stupidity, the hot dogs, etc. So I am guessing that American television would look that way to someone from Europe.
(I know, on line, a Lynch fan from Romania, so I should ask her about this. It seemed like she gave up talking about IE a long time ago though, so I don't know if she will answer.)
I have been thinking that the point of the scene is that it is Lost Girl's first attempt to make things happen the way she wants so in her dream she is taking Piotrek away from Sue and bringing him to eastern Europe where he will be closer. But the child theme is something to think about, especially given that there is a child who died in the story.
In the monologue he is just "They had this guy working there ... Marine from North Carolina", etc. So I still don't see where the speculation comes from about anyone really working for the phantom. I don't see the advantage of assuming that.
I know that the monologue is in this way. Working here I think is meant as how the formal relationships are. But one aspect of working is following. And the people in the circus seem to follow the phantom.
I feel like I'm on a slippery slope here, wait a minute. First, the customers followed the phantom, not necessarily the co-workers. But even if they did, say maybe he got them to go to the bar. That too is a long way from saying that her husband "works for" him.
Maybe only Gordy is left.
I don't think that is in the movie.
Maybe all other ones followed the phantom. btw - Guess that we assume that the phantom is meant with "he". I don`t know how it is with others, but my speculation comes from - as I tried to explain - Lost Girl. She says: "I have to tell you all there is someone." And it seems that it is a problem that there is someone. So who is that someone causing problems? One maybe could argue that she means "Piotrek" and that the problem is that she doesn`t know him. But I don`t believe in this so far. The advantage maybe is: If "Piotrek" follows a phantom he won`t be paid and if he won`t be paid he can`t pay the costs of a family. "I can`t father children" maybe is not meant in the infertility-sense, but in the supporting-sense.
Well, it just doesn't follow other things in the story for me. In the beginning, the phantom is like a disease trying to enter the Inland Empire and Janek is like the immune system trying to keep him out, and then, when he gets in anyway, trying to get rid of him.
I'll pay more attention to the subtitles when she speaks and compare the English, but the basic sense that I get is that she wound up in trouble and called for help, and these psychic men heard her and held a sÃ©ance. In the sÃ©ance she asked for Piotrek. So Janek brought him there. Logically, the scene with the shed should be next but it was before this scene. I don't know why "” maybe Janek came into the movie and found Piotrek and made a first attempt by going to his boss in the circus (in the shed) who didn't know any more than anyone else about how the phantom got in and out of the movie or where he was. But when he says that he said something about "Inland Empire", that means that part of southern California. So all those things seem to fit with Gordy being the one Piotrek works for and Merek Zydowics being the one Peter Lucas works for and so that's how Piotrek gets to the Sue and Billy story to plant the gun in Sue's drawer so that Nikki could portray Sue finding it and killing the phantom.
So maybe Devon is the little boy and Nikki is the little girl. But who knows the way to the palace? "Blue" rabbit (4.00; K)? Janek (7.00)?
I can't follow these running times; I think my player is old and has different numbers.
From the beginning of when the visitor showed her the scene of getting the part, we seem to be watching a very dreamlike story that is told to her by Visitor #1.
The thing that has always truck me as odd is how the Visitor says: "When he opened his door ..." Why "his door"? Normally we would say "the door".
It`s interesting that Nikki says that there is no murder in the movie. When we think about the death scene and the words from Kingsley to Nikki ("Nikki, you were wonderful") I think we can assume that there is a murder in the movie. But the talk from Nikki to Visitor 1 seems to be superficial ("I think I know where you live"). Visitor 1 ignores that she should go - she crosses a border. It`s interesting how she looks to the other side when the butler offers milk and sugar as if she would be disgusted and then says something like: "Yes, the coffee is very good."
The visitor doesn't seem to think she needs to pay much attention to wht she thinks. She seems confident and not worried by any of that.
But when the visitor tells her that tomorrow she would be over there, and then she turns very slowly, as if hypnotized or in a dream, then we see a different image of her getting the part. From that point on we are seeing the story the visitor is suggesting "if today were tomorrow". So the story the Dern character (not named yet) read in the script may not be the same as the one we see in the version of it that the visitor tells her. It is only in this story that she is called Nikki.
Another odd thing she says, and this is another odd thing particular to the English, is "Which house are you living in?" We would expect her to say, "Which house do you live in?", which would mean, "Which house is yours? Where do you live?" etc. But "Which house are you living in?" implies something temporary. She says "I've been going around meeting our new neighbors." It's as if these dwelling places are in an after life world where people who are no longer living are temporarily housed until they can incarnate again.
Janek seems as knowing what he does. He seems that he knowed it before that there is no phantom anymore. But "Piotrek" seems to much involved. The offered solution isn`t enough for him.
From the scene in the woods, I'd say that he knows the Phantom has something to do with the Inland Empire. But Lost Girl still needs help. In the end, she winds up in Southern California's Inland Empire with her husband, but it seems that the phantom wanted to follow there and mess things up for her there too, in the remake of the movie. Then the whole sequence with the gun etc.
But another thing I keep wondering is how did Piotrek and Janek join up?
I think what I said above was more clear this time.
To me it seems that we have two helpers in IE. One introduced at 4.00 (with applause) and one introduced at 7.00 (with slow appearing). "Blue" rabbit helps Nikki. And Janek helps "Piotrek". But - maybe - "blue" rabbit is also Janek. And - maybe - the secret of the "blue" rabbit is the way to the palace.
I'll see if I can find these numbers. They would have to be significant.
I don't think Janek is the rabbit because we see who that rabbit is; he is the man on our left with the gun.
In the first line I think we have the following solution at the sÃ©ance: the understanding of "Piotrek" of whom he followed. I think that is the solution Janek intended with bringing "Piotrek" to the sÃ©ance. One "rabbit" seems to think "The right solution in this case would be to kill the phantom". Janek seems that he thinks that this wouldn`t be a good solution.
The gun seems not to be an appropriate solution. It seems that "Piotrek" doesn`t use it, but lays it down into the drawer. He doesn`t do what one of the "rabbits" assume a good solution.
It seems to me that they all agreed and that was the plan and he followed the plan. He takes the gun out of the Polish story (because the phantom has escaped into the California one) and puts it where the protagonist of the California story (Sue) can use it.
It seems that the screwdriver is the right solution.
Isn't that part of the same plan? When Sue is killed, the phantom thinks he is free and clear and is looking for room 4 7. But Nikki resurrects Sue so she can kill him. She sees a part of the movie we didn't know about, the gun in the drawer. The phantom did not expect the gun to be there.
I don`t think that Janek tries to keep out the phantom out of the story. It seems that Janek has the might to decide, whethter the phantom gets access or not.
Aren't those the same thing? I don't see the difference. We know that the phantom did get into the story because there he is.
I think 4.00 and 7.00 are intended. We have so much to do with 4 and 7s in IE that David Lynch maybe has thought during he arranged the scenes "Something special has to occur at these times.".
Yes, you must be right there. I'll look.
Well, dogs like to move...
A new expression I had not heard! Another one I found interesting: I am working with a woman in Germany on a book and we were talking about someone we hope will publish it but whom we have not yet contacted. We know that he made a mistake in another book, so she said, "I won't tell him until he is in our boat."