What is the general take on 'Who killed Teresa'?

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:40 pm

Right. BOB using a father to rape his own daughter: incest.

Driftwood · Post by **Driftwood** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:19 am

I think blaming it entirely on a malevolent spirit is boring at best and at worst is a disservice to victims of these things in real life, which happen and go on exactly because "he was nice guy, pillar of the community, who could believe it" and people thinking rape is a stereotype about getting jumped in alley at night by some vagrant. bob the dirty grey haired man lurking in the dark is the symbol people conjure because they conciously or unconciously don't want to see what's going on in front of them

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:46 pm

In other words, people who don't agree with your take are committing disservice to real life rape victims? That's a new one lol.

Snailhead · Post by **Snailhead** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:21 pm

Agent Sam Stanley wrote:In other words, people who don't agree with your take are committing disservice to real life rape victims? That's a new one lol.

Except it's not just his take... it's an all too real problem in society.

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:43 pm

Snailhead wrote:
Agent Sam Stanley wrote:In other words, people who don't agree with your take are committing disservice to real life rape victims? That's a new one lol.
Except it's not just his take... it's an all too real problem in society.

Interesting. Ray Wise said many times that he played the character as someone who was being completely controlled by an evil entity as he hated the idea that Leland was consciously harming his own daughter. Mr Wise not only played the character in question but was directed by the Twin Peaks creator while doing so, yet he might as well put Mr Wise as one of those people who have a "boring take" on the subject and commit disservice to rape victims

Driftwood · Post by **Driftwood** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:29 pm

Holding up the word of the author or actor as the word of god is also boring. Why think about a thing at all then, just wait for the official word on how to officially interpret a piece of media. (Also Ray Wise finding the material off puting should hopefully be a "no sh*t")

tmurry · Post by **tmurry** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:24 pm

Ray Wise said many times that he played the character as someone who was being completely controlled by an evil entity as he hated the idea that Leland was consciously harming his own daughter.

Yeah, that's a perfect headspace for Leland. You are saying the actor played it as a guy that didn't want to think he was the kind of person that would do this and wanted to believe that it wasn't him (!) but also played the person who actually, physically did it. That sounds like Leland, alright.

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:51 pm

Driftwood wrote:Holding up the word of the author or actor as the word of god is also boring. Why think about a thing at all then, just wait for the official word on how to officially interpret a piece of media. (Also Ray Wise finding the material off puting should hopefully be a "no sh*t")

Apparently you didn't read my first post in this thread, when I said that IMO there's no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of Lynch's work. But I can't say that I'm surprised, coming from someone who says every interpretation other than his about something is boring lol

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:54 pm

tmurry wrote:
Ray Wise said many times that he played the character as someone who was being completely controlled by an evil entity as he hated the idea that Leland was consciously harming his own daughter.
Yeah, that's a perfect headspace for Leland. You are saying the actor played it as a guy that didn't want to think he was the kind of person that would do this and wanted to believe that it wasn't him (!) but also played the person who actually, physically did it. That sounds like Leland, alright.

And that seems like you twisting things to say that deep down the actor agrees with your theory, even when he said otherwise.

tmurry · Post by **tmurry** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 4:58 pm

I am saying the actor is in just the right place that he needs to be psychologically to play a character that cannot admit to himself that he is a monster.

Mr. Reindeer · Post by **Mr. Reindeer** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:00 pm

I think just about every actor who has ever spoken about working with Lynch has said he gives them as little info as he possibly can (there was a whole section about that in this week's GQ article). I don't think Wise's interpretation says a thing about Lynch's feelings. Lynch doesn't care what an actor thinks is going on, so long as he gets the result he wants onscreen.

And Wise has admitted that to some extent he rationalized Leland's culpability away because he had young daughters and couldn't bear to be in the headspace of someone who raped and killed his own daughter.

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:32 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote: And Wise has admitted that to some extent he rationalized Leland's culpability away because he had young daughters and couldn't bear to be in the headspace of someone who raped and killed his own daughter.

That was one of the reasons, but he also said he loved Leland and preferred to play him as someone who was completely innocent and was doing all his criminal acts unconsciously.

You're right about Lynch tho, and I agree that Wise's take on the character doesn't define Lynch's intentions, especially since IMO FWWM left Leland's culpability up for the viewer to decide.

Dalai Cooper · Post by **Dalai Cooper** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:08 am

I can see why audiences would want to share leland's/wise's denial of what's going on - it's certainly an easier pill to swallow. I guess what I'd like to ask the people who think it's 100% cut-and-dried "the evil spirit made him do it" is what do you do with the part where leland (clearly established as leland by both performance and visual language of the film) says "I always thought you knew it was me"? Do you just, like ignore it? Because BOB's line right afterward is ambiguous (and horrifying) but leland's couldn't be more straightforward.

I agree that the level of leland's culpability is open to interpretation, it just seems to me that when you've had the wash your hands scene (and what it implies about Sarah's knowledge - she is emphatically not drugged), the banks blackmail plot, the myriad hints dropped by lynch especially during the show's run, AND THEN this line comes up and you are still unshaken in your belief in leland's innocence, you are doing an awful lot of work to avoid facing up to something.

djerdap · Post by **djerdap** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:29 am

Lynch is unequivocally implicating Leland every step of the way. The demonic possession angle is clearly a wash-your-hands routine that makes the viewer (and some of the writers on the show) clean the slate. Which is why it was so cringe-worthy to see all the EW journalists go about it like it's gospel.

Agent Sam Stanley · Post by **Agent Sam Stanley** » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:34 am

Dalai Cooper wrote:I guess what I'd like to ask the people who think it's 100% cut-and-dried "the evil spirit made him do it" is what do you do with the part where leland (clearly established as leland by both performance and visual language of the film) says "I always thought you knew it was me"? Do you just, like ignore it? Because BOB's line right afterward is ambiguous (and horrifying) but leland's couldn't be more straightforward.

I always saw Leland's line as BOB viciously toying with Laura's perception, saying one thing as Leland and the opposite in its true form.

I'm actually surprised so many people in this thread think there's only one way to look at this, and if you don't see it like that you're "boring", or "you're ignoring things", or you're even commiting disservice to rape victims (?). Considering this is a David Lynch film we're discussing (of all directors) I think it's kind of sad. Lynch said so many times how he hates to explain things because he likes the viewer to interpret what's on the screen and there's no right or wrong when it comes to his films. And then you come to a David Lynch thread and people say "what do you do when you don't see this the same way that I did, so you just ignored what I saw?". Doesn't make a lot of sense and it's kind of pretentious IMO.
Anyway, peace to all.