L.B.

Discussion of INLAND EMPIRE

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

JFK
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: chicago,IL

Re: L.B.

Postby JFK » Mon Jun 09, 2008 10:18 pm

Kiddo wrote:
Now, even if we could tell for sure which actress played the woman in white, that doesn't answer the question, "Who is she?"


But because Gruszka is the woman in white, we do know the answer to Lori and Lanni's question. She, the woman in white, is the woman who commits murder-by-screwdriver. That is who she is. And because Gruszka is the woman in white, we know her motivation was jealousy. Remember when she told Polish Lucas that she would never let an unnamed woman have him? That unnamed woman (played by an uncredited actress) was the woman Gruszka in white is referring to. Gruszka in white made good on her promise.


how did you all of a sudden just decide that is Gruszka? like applesnoranges said, the only feature that differs significantly is their voice. and i agree with apples, it does sound like Ormond. so where is YOUR evidence? you have made all these conclusions based on deciding that "because Gruszka is the woman in white" we then know the answer to who she is. but why is that so? because it fits your conclusions? thats not the way i go about reasoning. but really the point is that what apples said is that even if we knew it was Ormond or Gruszka, we will never know the answer to who she really is. it is visually and textually ambiguous to call attention to that fact. and calls into question the valley girls question's significance or lack thereof.
but just to back up my interpetation, wouldnt the woman he is married to be more inclined to say "never have", because if they are married, they already "have" each other. Gruszka wouldnt say that because she doesnt "have" him yet.
Kiddo
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Kiddo » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:34 am

how did you all of a sudden just decide that is Gruszka? where is YOUR evidence?


Sorry, but I already provided the evidence in a previous post. My intention is simply to post messages, not to endlessly repeat them or read them to you. Do your homework and go through the messages on this thread.

And understand that the woman in white is clearly Gruszka (although Ormand would certainly be my #2 pick).

Sorry if it riles you, but that's what happens when you cling to old disproved theories out of convenience.
JFK
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: chicago,IL

Re: L.B.

Postby JFK » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:36 pm

Kiddo wrote:
how did you all of a sudden just decide that is Gruszka? where is YOUR evidence?


Sorry, but I already provided the evidence in a previous post. My intention is simply to post messages, not to endlessly repeat them or read them to you. Do your homework and go through the messages on this thread.

And understand that the woman in white is clearly Gruszka (although Ormand would certainly be my #2 pick).

Sorry if it riles you, but that's what happens when you cling to old disproved theories out of convenience.



ok thats just ridiculous. first youre repeating yourself, while at the same time complaining about it. because you make no effort to address my points, and then you accuse me of doing the same, because you ignore my evidence, then say i provided none while you provide no evidence, and then defend yourself by saying youve already provided it when you didnt, youre going to find yourself repeating yourself quite a bit if thats your way of discourse. i have read this entire thread. that is a fact. and double checked all your posts, and the evidence you claim is there is not there. you are wasting my time(and yours) with your sarcasm and lazy reasoning and general disregard for any new ideas that dont fit your theories. i was giving you the benefit of the doubt before, but this post just erased that. you certainly are set in your ways about IE, and ironically for you, one of the themes of IE is how being so rigid can get you in trouble.
so end of discussion kiddo. baby, youre a lost cause.
Last edited by JFK on Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Re: L.B.

Postby applesnoranges » Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:50 pm

Kiddo wrote:
But because Gruszka is the woman in white, we do know the answer to Lori and Lanni's question. She, the woman in white, is the woman who commits murder-by-screwdriver. That is who she is. And because Gruszka is the woman in white, we know her motivation was jealousy. Remember when she told Polish Lucas that she would never let an unnamed woman have him? That unnamed woman (played by an uncredited actress) was the woman Gruszka in white is referring to. Gruszka in white made good on her promise.

That all follows logically, OK, but does it continue to do so through the rest of the story? I don't know who you mean by the uncredited actress because I don't see the "her" she mentions unless she is the uncredited actress and Ormand with her guts hanging out is the one she kills. So that's a question, but the bigger question I wonder about is the murderous intent in the attitude of Ormond as Doris confronting Nikki/Sue where we see a repeated flash of the shot of Ormond as corpse. And of course Dern's character gets her payback at the end from Doris (or some other Ormond character).

So, we hear "Who is she?" twice, once about the woman in white and once about the corpse. Some people think the corpse is a digital composite of Ormond and Gruszka but most identify her as Ormond.

As I've said, I'm not convinced that the woman in white was played by Gruszka but that does not invalidate your identification of her as the same character. So, how does identifying the woman in white as Gruszka's character (assuming you mean the one who is beaten, has the conversation w/ Maj. on the street etc.) play out in the other murder scenes?
Carl
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Carl » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:19 pm

I'm going to slowly work my way through this discussion., starting with

'...not only is she a character in a film(who gradually becomes aware she's a character)
and therefore an abstraction with no way to be judged objectively
but there's no way to be certain which parts of IE may be going on in her perspective(meaning outside the reality of the other characters)
and which parts are true, ontologically, for the film itself
...'

Which parts are 'real' ontologically, in IE, are the crux of this and many other discussions about this movie, imo.
I do not think that , just because LG sees the events, such as Rabbits or Visitor #1 on a TV , they are necessarily contained in an 'inner wrapper' within IE( such as 4 7, OHIBT, axxoNn, whatever. )
I need to think about this some more. None of yuns are automatically idiots, presumptuous or whatever for disagreeing with me while I do this thinking. Now, after I reach some big conclusion, if anyone is still obstinate enough to think other than I...well, then. :P

**' ...by the end of the film, something has happened. nikki, when today is tomorrow, has changed. and it looks like a pleasant change. i would say that is because of what she did for piotrek and lost girl(as well as herself).
and i would call that a good act. ...'
Well, yes.
Like the case of Michael Corleone in III or Tony Soprano in Season Six, this is a struggle for one's soul, not with the devil, but with one's self. IMO, more than one person is contending here and there are no obvious villains.
***
To me, there is no clear identification of the'woman in white'.
I've heard the arguments, but, as Einstein said, "I may be convinced, but I'm not yet convicted.'
JFK
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: chicago,IL

Re: L.B.

Postby JFK » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:02 pm

i appreciate your comments carl, as well as the light humor. sometimes in these messageboards, people forget the importance of a little levity in discussion. it helps especially when talking about IE.(and no kiddo, i am not refering to you, i am making a generalization)
and i couldnt agree more with your statement:
"Which parts are 'real' ontologically, in IE, are the crux of this and many other discussions about this movie, imo"
indeed, is there a reality apart from the base reality of audient and film?
this is why i was getting frustrated with kiddo. he/she just completely sidestepped this issue i had brought up, and, as you said, this concept is fundamentally important for interpetation and analysis. as well as being able to discuss it.
and yes, the godfather or sopranos analogy is apt for my point. IE is about spirit, and consciousness, and the unified field lynch believes in, imo. sure adultry is in there too, and abortion, and lying, and hollywood, but the question of whether nikki is a good or bad person really is moot because that all depends on how one defines good and bad and how possible it is to judge that fact regardless of perspective. even in yourself, as you pointed out. good/bad as a qualifying measurement is absolutely subjective and too vague to be of value. like you say, there are no obvious villians.
Kiddo
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Kiddo » Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:12 pm

I don't know who you mean by the uncredited actress


The uncredited actress is the one with her guts hanging out. She is the one whom Gruszka in white referred to when she told Polish Lucas that she would never let her have him. "Never..." She is the woman pony-tailed Gruszka murdered.

Ormand appears to play no role whatsoever in the Polish story.

And I hate to keep saying this, but I already answered your question about why it matters that Gruszka is the woman in white. We know she was leading a double life (as made evident by the fact that no one here but me can clearly identify her!). We know she committed murder out of jealousy. On top of this, evidence points to her being a prostitute whose baby was forcibly aborted. We're learning the horror of her life, and how she ended up as a tortured soul in the limbo-realm of room 205 in the Old Hotel. This is the very core of the story.
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Re: L.B.

Postby applesnoranges » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:22 pm

Kiddo wrote:And I hate to keep saying this, but I already answered your question about why it matters that Gruszka is the woman in white.

You must be talking to someone else here. I don't think I asked that. So excuse me for interrupting but ... what were you saying?
Kiddo
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Kiddo » Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:27 am

Kiddo: And I hate to keep saying this, but I already answered your question about why it matters that Gruszka is the woman in white.

apples: You must be talking to someone else here. I don't think I asked that.


No, I was specifically addressing you. Earlier, you asked...

how does identifying the woman in white as Gruszka's character...play out in the other murder scenes?


I answered that question in a earlier post.

Now I have to wonder the same about those who believe that the mystery girl is Ormand. And if the unseen woman speaking to Polish Lucas is played by Ormand, what was the point of concealing her identity?
applesnoranges
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:03 am
Location: California

Re: L.B.

Postby applesnoranges » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:15 am

No, you didn't answer the question I asked. You pretended that I had asked something else. You brought up some interesting ideas, a little like mentioning a step in a Rubik's cube, and I wondered if you had ideas about the rest of the cube. But of course it doesn't matter if you answer or not.
Kiddo
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Kiddo » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:37 am

Sorry apples, you can keep pretending I haven't answered your question, but the answers all in front of your face.

The cube has been solved.
Carl
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Carl » Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:49 pm

'...And if the unseen woman speaking to Polish Lucas is played by Ormand, what was the point of concealing her identity?
...'
Possibly as a gag revolving around the fact that Ormond did not travel to Poland for the filming of IE, so a stand-in was used for this scene?

**There seems to be a lot of interpretation revolving around 'prostitute/client/pimp relationships'.
I don't see Krzysztof Majchrzak as necessarily a Pimp, just a man, like Smithy, whose wife ( okay, woman, whatever) is playing around on him, like Sue, with a certain mustachioed man who may be either an actor, like Devon, or , if these are scenes from 4 7 ( which I'm open-minded about, but doubt), a character, like Billy.
The woman in white seems to be like Doris, though infertile.


:?: Let me ask again, are the 'woman in white' and the woman whom The Phantom beats and 'pushes to hell' played by the same actress?
I think not, but am willing to consider any arguments. It seems to me that one kills the other, no?
The one who is beaten, anyway, is she played by Gruszka ?
The parallels are LG/Sue/Nikki, Woman in White/Doris, Mustache/Billy/Devon, Smithy/??? There's the rub, eh? Smithy seems paralleled to The Phantom in OHIBT, although played by Lukas ( fine performance(s) ).
'Symmetry breaking' always interests me ( not just in IE analysis.)
I fully take the 'field' rap about the characters and how they blend into one another. When I first saw this thing, when it came out on DVD, that was my naive interpretation. I'm sure there's a great deal of validity in such, but I'm still looking for a clearer, more objective plot ( mayhap from apophenia, ibid.)
***
:?: What is the source and significance of the audio hissing that is part of the background sound for some of the Polish scenes? Is it from the old soundtrack to 4 7, thus hinting that these scenes are included in that movie? Or is it from the worn stylus scratching the surface of the sound-effects record used in the radio drama, AxxoNn?
I fucking hate vinyl. Yucky, quasi-Victorian tech...eeeYEW!
JFK
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:45 pm
Location: chicago,IL

Re: L.B.

Postby JFK » Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:21 pm

Kiddo wrote:
I don't know who you mean by the uncredited actress

And I hate to keep saying this, but I already answered your question about why it matters that Gruszka is the woman in white. We know she was leading a double life (as made evident by the fact that no one here but me can clearly identify her!).


just when i think you can not possibly top your previously asinine comments, here you manage to do it again. congrats kiddo! why do you bother to keep repeating yourself if it irks you so much? you do have the option to stop posting you know. or is it that you enjoy your half-baked theories and making fun of others instead of exchanging ideas and concepts in good faith so that we all help each other in our own interpetations? from reading your posts, im going to be presumptuous and assume the former, as the negativity emanating from your posts screams of a passive/aggresive personality, which, by now, has emptied all the points you have made of their validity because you are acting in bad faith. and i have no tolerance for that.
and by the way, you dont seem to have noticed
but your rubik's cube is broken.
Kiddo
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 5:58 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Kiddo » Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:11 am

JFK,
Done with your baby tantrum yet? Good. Now be quiet and listen.

carl,
are the 'woman in white' and the woman whom The Phantom beats and 'pushes to hell' played by the same actress?


Yes - Karolina Gruszka.

It seems to me that one kills the other, no?


Absolutely no. No one kills any of Gruszka's characters in the Polish storyline. It looks like Majchrzak is about to kill her, but we never find out.

Btw, the dead woman with her guts hanging out is not played by Gruszka - she is played by an uncredited actress.

The one who is beaten, anyway, is she played by Gruszka ?


Yes. As is the woman who tells Lori and Lanni: "Hey, look at me and tell me if you've known me before."

As is the woman who bumps into Majchrzak on the street.

As is the English-speaking woman who buys the watch from Majchrzak in MORE THINGS THAT HAPPENED.

What most people tend to forget is that Gruszka's character (Lost Girl) leads multiple lives in the same way that Dern's character (Nikki/Susan) does. And Lost Girl was leading a double life to begin with.

What is the source and significance of the audio hissing that is part of the background sound for some of the Polish scenes?


The hissing is always connected to Lost Girl's story (as opposed to Nikki/Susan's story). Just as Nikki became trapped in the cursed filmic world of OHBT, Lost Girl became trapped in the cursed radio world of Axxon N. The scratching serves as a reminder of which story we're following. The entire story of IE is the coming-together of Lost Girl's story and Nikki/Susan's story.

Notice at the end of the film, when Nikki/Susan enters the green hall that leads her to room 47, the scratching sound slowly gets louder as she approaches. This is meant to tell us that Nikki/Susan is getting close to the rabbit room where she will be able to make direct contact with Lost Girl.
Carl
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: L.B.

Postby Carl » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:18 pm

Well, someone killed the woman-with-guts-hanging out, killed her with a screwdriver ( probably), which implement we see in the hands of the woman ascending the stairs.
I doubt it's someone we ain't seen before. I also think, another symmetry broken, that she is killed by the woman she has wronged ( by doing her husband). This would reflect the switch-over of the weapon in OHIBT, yet leave Grushka ( presumably as the actress who was playing a role in 4 7 and having an affair which ticked off The Phantom and the Woman In White) dead, unlike Doris ( here's that broken symmetry.).
**I often Post on various Black Metal Boards, filled with teen age satanists, anarchists, drugged-out zombies, church arsonists, ..., yet the overall tone of the discussion remains fairly civil.
***Yes, indeed, I agree, 'hissing' shows an old Poland story, but just which one? If it's consistently applied ( and I credit DL that it is) it can be another clue as to which fictional construct we are seeing, ie, IE ( if it's the doomed actors in 4 7), 4 7 ( if it's the characters they are portraying), axxoNn or whatever.
I thought, the first time I noticed the hiss, that this was to imply we were watching scenes from the old melodrama, 47. Now, upon reflection, it seems that the 'Cast out this wicked dream...' is set up to be the only scene from that film ( mostly, of course, by the gag QK parallel).
I have also assumed that Sue being in Poland, as well as, mostly in MTTH, Nikki, showed that some of these scenes might be in OHIBT.
I guess it's possible that DL cut the cross-talk scene of Nikki , Devon, The Phantom ( as Crimp?? ) to lessen this impression or just to further complicate matters. As it is one of Dern's better scenes, it still surprises me that it was not in the theatrical release.

Return to “INLAND EMPIRE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests