FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Dalai Cooper » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:19 pm

yeah. I know this sounds douchey - who am I to dictate how ppl respond to art? - but I can't help being annoyed/contemptuous when ppl laugh at anything incongruous orweird, like humour is their only frame of reference for why a filmmaker would be surreal. It makes me think "this is prob not the director for you". I'll admit there's also an element of fanboy pique: I love twin peaks and laura's story, so hate when ppl disrespect it/her >:-[

the screening I saw the other week was a "25th anniversary" print that's been doing the rounds here in the UK. A curious thing: there were no subtitles, either in the lodge scenes or in the pink room scene. I think that may have lost some of the crowd, a very long scene with pretty much inaudible dialogue!
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Dalai Cooper » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:21 pm

Similarly, when I watched Inland Empire on MUBI, there were no subtitle for the Polish scenes, which I assumed was a deliberate aesthetic decision on lynch's part. To this day I have no idea what they were talking about! Still adored the film tho.
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Agent Sam Stanley » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:45 pm

LostInTheMovies wrote:
See, I think Nicholson's performance is hilarious AND terrifying! And I love it (and the film) for that. I think Lynch often goes for/achieves a similar effect, just not in FWWM (other than maybe the Deer Meadow stuff which is definitely funny and a little spooky). I can see - maybe - how the "Wash Your Hands" speech could be darkly comic in theory but it doesn't play that way at all to me onscreen. Almost like Lynch and Engels wrote it to be a tense, creepy, nervous-laughter moment (think some of Frank's manic speeches in Blue Velvet, especially when visiting This Is It) but then Ly ch directed Wise and Lee to play it real instead of heightened.

Back to The Shining, again maybe it's perverse of me but I also like that Jack is so subtly deranged before he gets to the Overlook. That scene in the car especially, when he's telling Danny about the Donner Party and making all those weird faces. As for the intention behind it (if we wanna speculate about that and risk Room 237 territory!) maybe it's the idea that Jack ISN'T such a normal guy beforehand and that the hotel essentially releases his true nature: the violent aggression, impotent rage, narcissism and misogyny that's been there all along, barely buried in the outside world. After all, as Grady tells him, "you've ALWAYS been the caretaker..."

Ok, that's it, someone start a Shining thread in Hap's Diner. ;)


I like your theory about the hotel releasing Jack's true nature. Kubrick was a director way ahead of his time (just like Lynch was and still is), so maybe that was the idea behind casting an actor who doesn't look exactly right from the beginning. I do know he wanted Shelley Duvall to be excessively clumsy and submissive so the audience would start hating her for not reacting like a normal person would. That's a great way to build up tension.
Regarding Nicholson's acting being hilarious and terrifying, I can see both things too. Like, when he mimics Wendy's nervous response "As soon as possible??", you can't help but laugh, although it's a very tense scene.
There are moments like that, but it's pretty annoying to watch the entire movie with someone giggling all the time.

Back to FWWM, I think the "Wash Your Hands" dialogue could be darkly comical if you interpret Leland's words literally. "Wash your hands because that's what polite people do before sitting at the dinner table, and I'm a paranoid father who takes these things very seriously". But there's the subtext there. Leland implies her hands are "dirty" because she's a dirty girl doing dirty things while she's not at the house. I tried to imagine my father saying that to my sister during dinner time, and it's just horrible. I really can't see a funny aspect in that.
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Agent Sam Stanley » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:51 pm

Dalai Cooper wrote:I'll admit there's also an element of fanboy pique: I love twin peaks and laura's story, so hate when ppl disrespect it/her >:-[


Haha, THIS!
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby LostInTheMovies » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:30 pm

Dalai Cooper wrote:yeah. I know this sounds douchey - who am I to dictate how ppl respond to art? - but I can't help being annoyed/contemptuous when ppl laugh at anything incongruous orweird, like humour is their only frame of reference for why a filmmaker would be surreal. It makes me think "this is prob not the director for you". I'll admit there's also an element of fanboy pique: I love twin peaks and laura's story, so hate when ppl disrespect it/her >:-[


Same here, on both counts! I think there's also a difference between laughing with/laughing at (although I guess that is HUGELY subjective). Lynch inspires uncomfortable laughter - I always think of the anecdotes surrounding Sarah Palmer on the telephone - but it's hard for me to hear people laughing every single time something surreal happens in FWWM and not hear it as mocking.

Agent Sam Stanley wrote:Back to FWWM, I think the "Wash Your Hands" dialogue could be darkly comical if you interpret Leland's words literally. "Wash your hands because that's what polite people do before sitting at the dinner table, and I'm a paranoid father who takes these things very seriously". But there's the subtext there. Leland implies her hands are "dirty" because she's a dirty girl doing dirty things while she's not at the house. I tried to imagine my father saying that to my sister during dinner time, and it's just horrible. I really can't see a funny aspect in that.


That's an excellent point. I feel like maybe THAT is what Lynch discovered on set. Then again, when I read the script recently it did read pretty brutal on the page too (though maybe that's just having the film in mind). Yet I've seen so many other Lynch films with that similar approach - everyday thing stretched to uncomfortable breaking point - that DO play as funny, that I have to wonder if that's how "Wash Your Hands" was intended. And if then, as Lynch worked closely with Lee, meditated on this stuff, and drew closer to its dark heart, he allowed the complete horror to take over and purposefully let go of that is it/isn't it ambiguity he usually employed (Wild at Heart is chock-full of such stuff, tonally speaking).

First time I watched Fire Walk With Me I was really thrown by the mixture of the absurdist humor in the first part, the splashes of supernatural surrealism throughout, and then the ultimate psychological reality of Laura's situation. Even though compared to a lot of Lynch's other work around that time, Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet, particularly the show Twin Peaks itself, that contrast is actually really toned down in Fire Walk With Me with the emphasis placed more on an exclusively dark seriousness. But those traces of a different tone, a more carnivalesque feel (especially in some of the deleted scenes) suggests to me that the film achieved its true - and correct - tone by the skin of its teeth and that the film Lynch set out to make was maybe more in keeping with the spirit of Blue Velvet/Twin Peaks before he was turned in a different direction.

Though this gave me major pause on first viewing (especially not knowing the context of how FWWM was made, essentially Lynch flying by the seat of his pants) it's ultimately one of the things that most draws me to the film and makes me cherish it: that the filmmaker discovered what he wanted to convey in the process of conveying it. It's what makes me a little sad that he is being so stubborn about the budget with TP 2016, much as I respect that decision: with FWWM, all he needed were a few core things - namely Laura Palmer - to strike gold. The script, which is a fairly chaotic collection of vignettes, wasn't much of a map really and ultimately he followed his own instincts. The result is as if he painted a canvas with his own blood: so raw, personal, painful, and it could ONLY have been created in this way.
Dalai Cooper
RR Diner Member
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Dalai Cooper » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:30 pm

yeah, or another tricky example would be the character of Leo. He is a figure of fun, arguably you are supposed to find him funny and absurd, but at the same time his scenes are really nasty depictions of domestic violence. The audience in my screening laughed at "this is where we LIVE, Shelley!" &c which, ok, fine, that is funny - but then they laughed at Leo slapping Shelley in the face! Where is the joke there?
MasterMastermind
RR Diner Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:17 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby MasterMastermind » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:43 pm

I agree with the above. "You need a good attitude, that's the key!" Then the humor is gone so fast you get whiplash. Same with Frank Booth's entrance in Blue Velvet.
mark79
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:07 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby mark79 » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:36 am

Why after Angel's disappearing from Laura's picture there's two different images (configuration of the trees on the field behind the children)? Is it just another Lynch's joke?
User avatar
thefifthlizard
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:58 am

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby thefifthlizard » Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:12 pm

Indeed, you're right. The trees on the left to indeed seem to disappear between shots
User avatar
prophit
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 2:02 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby prophit » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:40 pm

Color-balanced
Version A FWWM 1:52:07 - 1:52:08
patch from A stretched to fit on B
Image

Version B FWWM 1:52:14 - 1:52:16
Image

Image
green box: the bend at hole five & six is an artifact of my attempt to stretch one canvas onto the other.
On the right on A, the row dips down and widens, not on B.

cyan box: the wall was painted over in A.

red box: In the landscape of B, the left is a mirror duplication of the right.
Image

- Trichome
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby Hockey Mask » Sat Feb 06, 2016 5:45 pm

There are some missing flowers above the green box in A.

Edit: maybe not missing but an empty spot added.
User avatar
prophit
New Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 2:02 pm

Re: FWWM questions (probably asked before but what the hell)

Postby prophit » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:56 pm

I was not able to capture the full picture with screenshots that I could then color-correct and compare. I lost some off the top, but more on the bottom, including a toy truck and the carpet pattern.

I can not find this style of art. I think the year is about 1923, from the haircuts and clothing.
Blondes, so possibly from the US, England, Northern Europe or Canada.

- Trichome

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests