Dream / Nightmare

Original Poster
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 25
You're probably sick of these theory threads, but I have one small question, and I'd like the replies to avoid spoilers, if possible.

I've only seen the film one, and as you can imagine, came out bewildered, yet emotionally enthralled. Gradually, I've thought about the smaller nuances of the film and began to piece together a collective explanation. However, before I see it again, I have one question, and I'd simply like a yes or no answer.

Okay: Is there a defining moment that confirms the first 2/3 to be a dream? Or is it possible that the first 2/3 are real, and the final section is a nightmare?
Aug 2, 2002 11:21 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 25
A simple yes or no?
Aug 3, 2002 1:54 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 109
[QUOTE]Is there a defining moment that confirms the first 2/3 to be a dream? Or is it possible that the first 2/3 are real, and the final section is a nightmare?[/QUOTE]
Yes, there is a defining moment - in the beginning, before the car accident, you can see through Diane's eyes - she is going to sleep and right after that, though her eyes, we see her dream. Everything right after "wake up pretty girl" is true - she woke up, gave her neighboor her dishes, had a galutionation of Camilla in her kitchen. Right after that realizing that there is no Camilla in her kitchen (- Camilla is already dead) she had some flashbacks and shot herself.
Aug 3, 2002 8:00 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 223
The first 2/3 is a dream (except for the Winkies scene with the patron and possibly his therapist) and the last 1/3 is real (with some delusions).

You know this because the nature of what goes on in most of the first 2/3 of the movie really doesn't happen in anything but dreams. When a woman like Camilla with amnesia hides in my appartment I will beleieve the first 2/3 of the story is real.

In contrast, the last 1/3 seems quite normal with a few insane delusions or supernatural beings thrown in (the homeless person/blue box the old couple).

Hope this answers your question.
Aug 3, 2002 11:08 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11793
Maybe the Winkies scene isn't part of the dream it does have very dreamlike qualities. The bizarre movement of the camera is a signal enough. The camera slowly bobs up and down as if on some sort of sea vessel. The fact that one man is speaking of his dream then goes on to realize, or believe, that he is in his dream, or that his dream has become real, also suggests...well I just added too many possibilities for there to be one answer, but I suppose you could say that dreams have a strong if not direct/literal connection with the scene. Then again the man could be psychic as some have mentioned, but I don't know. Either way it's damned interesting to me...
Aug 6, 2002 11:17 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ergill_sanchez
I suppose you could say that dreams have a strong if not direct/literal connection with the scene. Then again the man could be psychic as some have mentioned, but I don't know. Either way it's damned interesting to me... [/QUOTE]
I totally agree

I find the idea of the Winkie's scene being a 'real' scene, outside of Diane's dream, to be <i>particularly</i> interesting........
Aug 7, 2002 2:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 373
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Neely O'Hara

I totally agree

I find the idea of the Winkie's scene being a 'real' scene, outside of Diane's dream, to be <i>particularly</i> interesting........
[/QUOTE]

It has become my favourite interpretation, precisely for the reason Ergill mentions--the nauseating handheld camera work is very different from the rest of the dream, which has beautiful, fluid cinematography. I'm pretty sure that the only other times we see the camera bob around for prolonged periods of time like this is when we are back in Diane's waking life, which suggests to me that this entire Winkie's sequence takes place outside of the dream, thereby hinting at the psychic devastation Diane has caused in her life--she's even disrupting the dreams of people she doesn't even know.
Aug 11, 2002 11:36 AM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 562
Interesting concept indeed... or it could be Diane's subconscious belief that she has caused upheaval in other people's dreams (Dan's). Either way, I like the idea of having something new to mull over in my mind... this Winkies=Reality concept is a possibility I won't easily dismiss.
Also, I had posted a thread in which I said I was having issues with Herb. He was bothering me because I couldn't fathom where in Diane's subconscious he was pulled from. Every other character seemed more easily defineable(sp? - I don't have my dictionary handy). Like you guys are saying, there's definitely something very different and almost displaced about this scene.
Aug 11, 2002 1:08 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 562
It looks like Lynch intended the Winkies Dan and Herb scene to be part of the dream after all. I just read the screenplay, and in it Lynch has written that a waitress with the nametag of 'Diane' serves the pair. As we well know, the 'real' Winkies waitress is called Betty, so this leads me to believe that this scene was supposed to be the dream.
Aug 11, 2002 2:24 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan Jardine
she's even disrupting the dreams of people she doesn't even know. [/QUOTE]
Ever since I read this passage in the modernworld article, I've been drawn to the idea of the 'Dan' sequence being <i>real</i>:

<B>"We know that the disturbed man was present at Winkie's the day Diane ordered the hit. Is she merely incorporating him into her dream as a possible "guide," meant to lead her to the monster of her own creation? Or does this sequence actually exist in the "real" world? Could the young man be a psychic who sensed the rupture in Diane's moral reality on that day, and has since become haunted by the apparition it called into being? I for one prefer this explanation. Not only does it add an extra vertical dimension to the story, it makes a Lynchian sort of sense, and resonates with the world of Twin Peaks. In the Lynchian universe, acts of evil can manifest as spirits on the material plane, which in turn may be interact with those sensitive enough to perceive them."</B>

I guess I find this all so intriguing because unlike dream 'theory', this is suggestive of 'real' forces/energies and manifestations that are beyond the perception of most people........and the thought of our extreme emotions manifesting into <i>entities</i> that can 'affect' other people is fascinating (the Winkie's bum here).

This is the stuff that always mesmerized me in Twin Peaks......and the stuff that left me with the feeling of having experienced somthing <i>truly</i> mysterious......



Neely
Aug 11, 2002 2:32 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan Jardine
It has become my favourite interpretation, precisely for the reason Ergill mentions--the nauseating handheld camera work is very different from the rest of the dream, which has beautiful, fluid cinematography. [/QUOTE]
To be honest..........it's become my 'favourite' interpretation simply because it's ultimately more provocative than a dream interpretation take on the scene......

Often, where there is more than one plausible interpretation of something, I tend to go with the one that gets 'under my skin' more
Aug 11, 2002 2:37 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 562
In the screenplay, the waitress in this scene is named Diane. Would that not make it part of the dream?
Aug 11, 2002 3:06 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 109
This scene is part of Diane's dream.
Aug 11, 2002 3:32 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by woodlouse
In the screenplay, the waitress in this scene is named Diane. Would that not make it part of the dream? [/QUOTE]
I know where you're coming from louse......but my problem with that is: why are you referring to what's in the screenplay instead of what's in the <i>film</i>? The end product is the only thing I 'refer' to when I 'engage' in a film.

And I think the fact that the waiteress ISNT in the Dan/Herb scene is <i>very</i> significant. I think if Lynch <i>wanted</i> to tell all of the observant viewers whether or not this scene was 'real', then he <i>would</i> have put the waitress in........with her name 'giving away' the truth. Ex: if the tag said 'Diane', it would make the scene part of the dream, if the tag said 'Betty', it's happening in reality.

But <i>no</i> waitress here..........

I like that



Neely
Aug 11, 2002 5:18 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hustlerst
This scene is part of Diane's dream. [/QUOTE]
No, it <i>could</i> be part of Diane's dream


I almost think it should be a rule to <i>only</i> use 'conditional' language in these parts
Aug 11, 2002 5:19 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TristanLove
Neely,

I guess I have not been able to understand or grasp such a provocative phenomenon, personally. Is it because of what you don't understand that intrigues you the most?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I <i>definitely</i> think that the things that 'intrigue' <i>all</i> of us most are things we don't <i>entirely</i> understand. The 'mysterious' is a powerful force. What I think enthralls me most about some of Lynch's work is that 'nether region' somewhere between 'reality' and 'elsewhere'........

I think part of it is that I find a strictly 'psychological' interpretation of MD to be a little 'lacking' somehow. When I watch the film, I understand and <i>feel</i> the emotional ride, but I also feel there's something 'else' going on too........something that is palpable to me, but inexplicable. So, when the conversation turns to things like 'realities crashing', etc, something in me perks. I can't explain it.


Neely
Aug 11, 2002 5:26 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 562
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Neely O'Hara

I know where you're coming from louse......but my problem with that is: why are you referring to what's in the screenplay instead of what's in the <i>film</i>? The end product is the only thing I 'refer' to when I 'engage' in a film.

And I think the fact that the waiteress ISNT in the Dan/Herb scene is <i>very</i> significant. I think if Lynch <i>wanted</i> to tell all of the observant viewers whether or not this scene was 'real', then he <i>would</i> have put the waitress in........with her name 'giving away' the truth. Ex: if the tag said 'Diane', it would make the scene part of the dream, if the tag said 'Betty', it's happening in reality.

But <i>no</i> waitress here..........

I like that

Neely
[/QUOTE]

You're right that it's what's in the finished product that matters most, and it is more effective that he left it open to interpretation in the end. I was just observing that he had originally planned to show the scene as part of the dream. And sometimes, reading the screenplay can help you understand things you might have not picked up on. I don't see the harm in that, but at the same time I do realise that screenplays usually get altered considerably to make the movie more concise.
Whatever the case, I don't think it matters whether the scene is a dream or reality... it's still good.
HEY! My smilies aren't working!!!!!
Aug 11, 2002 11:19 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by woodlouse
And sometimes, reading the screenplay can help you understand things you might have not picked up on. I don't see the harm in that, but at the same time I do realise that screenplays usually get altered considerably to make the movie more concise.[/QUOTE]
Actually, thinking about it, I'll go one step further woodlouse.....

I think in the case of MD, referring to the original screenplay could be especially misleading..........because the things that are contradictory or more clearly 'defined' in the original screenplay might be the things that he <i>had</i> to change to accomodate the new 'complete' vision of the project.
Aug 11, 2002 11:43 PM
0 0
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 758
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TristanLove
Thanks... you've triggered some good thoughts today that I lack the insight to ponder in my usual trend/pattern of thinking. [/QUOTE]
*smile*

actually, I was thinking the same thing about most of the recent 'activity' in here
Aug 11, 2002 11:47 PM
0 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 562
[QUOTE]Actually, thinking about it, I'll go one step further woodlouse..... think in the case of MD, referring to the original screenplay could be especially misleading..........because the things that are contradictory or more clearly 'defined' in the original screenplay might be the things that he had to change to accomodate the new 'complete' vision of the project.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that basically paraphrasing what I just said?
Aug 11, 2002 11:51 PM
0 0