Mr. Reindeer
White Lodge
- Apr 13, 2022
- 950
- 2,141
FWWM The Missing Pieces
- Thread starter Dom
- Start date
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
I mean, I'm not trying to present an argument that wasn't made. But not everybody was saying it was subtle. It seemed like some were highly confident and that the FX seemed very clear and obvious.
I was specifically responding to these comments:
I'm not clear on what I misrepresented there. I was responding to those remarks saying I don't see that at all, and comparing the two shots from both films. Whether they specifically meant "exactly the same" or "kind of the same" or even "subtly a tiny bit the same" as Inland Empire's FX, all of those were implausible to me, as there's clearly no visual FX or distortion on her face, and if there somehow was, nothing close to Lynch's quaint use of FX from the early 2000s. It would have to be something incredibly sophisticated and more real-looking than literally anything he's done in his entire career. Again, that seemed extremely unlikely to me.
But I can't read someone's mind when they post or guess at what degrees of sameness someone is implying. I think my internet form was just fine. I mean...in my opinion!
Last edited:
- Apr 12, 2022
- 77
- 305
When I saw The Missing Pieces on the big screen, I thought to myself that it looked tweaked by VFX. However, the speed issue could have fooled my already fried brain.
Also, Sabrina has been wrong before.
Also, Sabrina has been wrong before.
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
I can't claim to know, but my point is I literally don't see or understand what some in this thread are saying is an effect. I don't even understand what the claim here is. I see an actress making a smile in front of a film camera. I don't see anything that can be confused for an effect.
It would be like if someone showed the shot of Leland sitting in the car and was saying "look at the FX!" I'd be totally confused, as I am now. I literally don't see it, and I've asked a few other people I know and showed them this thread, and they don't either.
It's genuinely one of the strangest debates I've ever been in, and Twin Peaks discourse is full of that.
AXX°N N.
Waiting Room
- Apr 14, 2022
- 386
- 895
Given that one of the floated suggestions is that the effect is actually framerate related or the introduction of emulated frames (interpolation), my impression is that the supposed effect is merely introducing a very slight uncanny smoothness and stillness, or slight enlargement of the mouth. Otherwise, why would every pro-FX poster include the caveat that they're not sure? Shots like the Inland Empire smile aren't intended to trick you into thinking it's real. I think you're interpreting "FX" to have to mean something obvious. I don't see why it's such a problematic suggestion, even if part of the suggestion is implying this is the subtlest use of FX in Lynch's filmography. His films are full of both obvious and subtle stuff--I had to have it explained to me, even though it affected me in the intended way, that the camera in the Winkie's diner scene is on a rather deliberate dolly track and introduces a floating, fluid quality that contributes (subconsciously for most viewers, I'd wager) to the dreamlike quality. It's obvious when you go back and forth on the remote, but only in hindsight, and only becomes glaringly obvious at 2x speed.
Maybe at the end of the day we just have to dub this the TP version of the white/blue dress debacle.
Maybe at the end of the day we just have to dub this the TP version of the white/blue dress debacle.
Last edited:
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
Wait...but now you're doing the thing you said I was doing and misrepresenting my argument.
I never argued against some really, really subtle effect with the frame rate or anything like that. In fact my posts actually say I think the frame rate was changed, and the only possible post FX might be some sort of lighting thing, flashes, etc.
What I was very specifically arguing against were not claims about slow motion or anything subtle, I was arguing against claims like: 1) what you are seeing is a still image with Lee's smile digitally created, 2) the smile is real but overlapped under her eyes which are a still image because "her eyes don't move" (but they actually do), 3) some combination or alternative version of those previous two things that also invoked Dern's face in Inland Empire as a comparison (to varying degrees not specified.)
That's it. That's exactly the only thing I was arguing against. And even after watching that scene a dozen times now, and in fast motion, slow motion, etc, I still don't see even slightly what anybody was talking about.
So yeah, please don't misrepresent what MY argument is, and I'll make every attempt not to do the same for others.
AXX°N N.
Waiting Room
- Apr 14, 2022
- 386
- 895
You seem to be making a distinction between subtle and a composite, as if a composite could never be subtle, though, right? I think that might be the point of disagreement. Regardless of whether someone was positing framerate, compositing, whatever, I still think a comparison to the IE smile to discredit it is comparing two different things: one (if FX were involved--please note I'm being hypothetical here) would have involved FX in order to create an uncanny sensation because you can't tell it's FX. The other is uncanny because it is extremely, obviously distorted to such a degree no one would even expect to see, and so is unquestionably weird FX. They would be totally different creative choices with different intent.
Last edited:
WorldFarAway
Glastonbury Grove
- Apr 12, 2022
- 123
- 336
Jordan, I’ve already explained that I have never seen a smile look quite like that in real life. I’ve specified it’s to do with how her eyes do not seem to match what is happening with the lower half of her face. I look at the stills you posted and the Laura shot still evokes the Inland Empire scene to me, even if it is way more subtle. You have explained several times how it does not look in any way artificial to you, and that is fine. All evidence points to the conclusion that your perception is the correct one, as I have already said. But my perception is what it is, and there are at least a handful of people who share it, so it’s not the same as if we were discussing a random shot of Leland in his car. You can’t prove a person wrong about how something looks to them.
Mr. Reindeer
White Lodge
- Apr 13, 2022
- 950
- 2,141
I really don't want to drag this out anymore, as we're just going in circles at this point, and as WorldFarAway and myself and pretty much everyone else have conceded that we were likely wrong (and I've admitted every step of the way that I might be wrong). I just want to add that the "handful" of people (as WorldFarAway modestly puts it) who shared in our perception (to one degree or another) includes some all-stars who have contributed to this community for many years going far back into the dugpa days. I won't embarrass those people by naming them again (although they've already been mentioned in prior posts in this thread, and some have subsequently contributed), but they have a long history of providing highly insightful and intelligent commentary, and I'm honored to have had them validate my viewpoint, even if it turns out that we were all wrong! The fact that they saw what I saw proves, to me, that the in-camera effect and performance were so incredibly subtle and unsettling that I was not at all unreasonable in perceiving some form of manipulation--and again, emphasizes Lynch's (and Lee's) skill in what they were able to achieve in-camera, given that it apparently fooled so many of us. And I think that, while we're all married to our respective viewpoints and passionate about this property, there's a lesson to be learned from the humbleness of those contributors, who despite their stature in the fan community, are always comfortable representing their opinions as just that--personal opinions--when engaging in debate.
Last edited:
Sparky
Great Northern Hotel
- Apr 12, 2022
- 77
- 175
Can I just add, as the person who brought this whole topic up in the first place, I never said that the smile was CG or any sort of FX work. I never for a second in the past 9 years assumed the shot was anything but actual footage of Shery Lee acting in the scene. The only thing I’ve said on the matter that TMP being edited digitally, as apposed to splicing on film, means that some very basic tools included with digital editors can tweak some very minor issues like flicker on a slow motion clip. I still believe that because other slow motion shots in the theatrical film have that flickering problem. If you look close enough at the shot of her smiling there are some artifacts of fixing that issue. Such as, some horizontal streaks that might look a bit like shadows to some. Bringing it up in the first place was just to acknowledge that even the most basic and simple adjustment creates a whole new “effect” for an already inspiring shot. What makes it so eerie is that now in 2014 it APPEARS like a still until you realize it moves. Whereas in 92 it would have been immediately identified as slow motion. Please compare it with the final shot of Fire Walk With Me if you don’t believe me. I have experience with digital editing software and I’m not just saying all of this to be contentious. There are several shots in TMP that are digitally zoomed and cropped. In the scene above the convenience store there’s a shot that pans across the room that has an overlay of the same shot on a delay with an artificial glow only appearing on one layer that’s achieved with a plug in effect. But like I said, this isn’t complex effects work but can simply be achieved in the editor without sending anything off to an effects house. Same approach as some very simple techniques used in season 3.
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
Again: I was not the one making that comparison. Others were. I was simply responding to the claim. I've already quoted the posts that did that. Honestly, I don't know what else I can say at this point. But please stop saying I'm misrepresenting the argument. I wasn't. Possibly misunderstanding the argument (which is why post after post I asked for clarification when others said it was a "still" or an "overlap"), but I was not intentionally bad faith "bad internet form" doing anything. I don't like when others do that and I try not to do that myself.
Whether "so subtle you can barely tell" (was that the original claim?) or "not subtle at all", my argument was the same: I don't see anything like that in that shot. If one is going to use the wacky Inland Empire FX as a reference for it, I'll respond to that specifically, and I don't see how it's bad form to do so.
Last edited:
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
I'm not trying to draw this out...
I'm confused though: I posted stills, but I also pointed out specific qualities in them, like the tension under her eyes naturally reacting to the smile, her nose reacting, her cheeks, her eyes widening, etc. All I am seeing is her eyes matching what is happening on the lower half of her face. Do you not see what I'm talking about? I'm not an expert on facial musculature but I feel like this is pretty observable if you really look. If you toggle back and forth between the stills this is clear.
Again, this sort of creepy "dead-eyed" smile is in a lot of horror movies. It's essentially a trope. And it's often done with no visual FX (not counting that movie "Smile" that digitally (and unnecessarily) stretched people's mouths.)
Also regarding Reindeer's post and debate in general: WorldFarAway is the reason I came to this forum, which was essentially I thought he was literally one of the only intelligent, interesting thinkers on the reddit and he had stopped posting, so I asked him where he does post and followed him here. My respect for those on the forum shouldn't be in doubt...It's just sometimes people disagree and debate about something. I don't really see any sort of conflict there. This stuff isn't life and death to me, for me it's fun (sometimes frustrating) debate about a tv show/movie.
Last edited:
WorldFarAway
Glastonbury Grove
- Apr 12, 2022
- 123
- 336
I’m not an effects artist, so all I can say is that the expression looks “off” to me. It’s like how the average viewers might criticise CGI Mark Hamill’s appearance in the Mandalorian by saying something just doesn’t seem right, or maybe mumbling something vague about dead eyes or stiff facial movements. It’s an instinctive response based on living in the world and interacting with people. An essay about how CGI Luke’s movements precisely match the actor and real human gestures wouldn’t change their gut reaction, and by the same token your analysis of the Laura scene doesn’t change mine.
Now it might change my mind if I was adamant that the image was altered with CGI, but I’m not! I have acknowledged several times that you are almost certainly correct. But I can’t change how the image looks through my eyes, and I’m not sure how you expect me to respond to your repeated expressions of incredulity. My own posts have become tiresomely repetitive, just by virtue of the fact I keep being asked to justify my perspective. Maybe we can just agree that you are probably right about the scene, but that for whatever reason it strikes a fair number of viewers as uncanny, no matter how surprising that might be to you.
Anyway, we have plenty we can agree on. The part of your post about what an interesting and intelligent thinker I am is totally on the money.
Last edited:
WorldFarAway
Glastonbury Grove
- Apr 12, 2022
- 123
- 336
Jordan Cole
White Lodge
- Sep 22, 2022
- 902
- 1,346
Consider me done!
Let's change the topic. What are some of your favorite Missing Pieces? What do you think should have been left in the finished film? Or what do you think makes sense that it was cut?
Something that fascinates me about TMP is how they give context for other things in the film that, on their own, seemed like non sequiturs or, you know, "Lynchian."
TMP gives context for Laura saying she's the muffin in the Pink Room. It's because in TMP, Donna and Laura have an exchange (still pretty weird) about which one of them is a muffin. Cut that out, and now out of nowhere Laura says "I am the muffin." In a way, it's accidental Lynchian weirdness: his original intention wasn't for it to be so random and out of nowhere!
I posted this elsewhere, but the Norwegian scene at the dinner table I truly believe was meant to be the other side of the coin of the "WASH YOUR HANDS" dinner table scene. Not to simplify, but one dinner was Good Leland, one dinner was Bad Leland/BOB. Only leaving in the Bad Leland dinner scene makes the movie feel more suffocating and dark, though I also think that contrast makes it very dark too, and something we can all relate to: we've had those nice dinners with our parents but also the ones where everything just seems to go wrong and everyone is in a bad mood or there's tons of drama/trauma.
It basically has no place in the movie, but I love the scene of Ed and Norma in the car, and them hearing the distant music on the radio that sounds so "far away" I think is hinting at mythology things, maybe they're hearing a broadcast from the White Lodge, where there's always music in the air, etc...I think this ties to Audrey dancing to the "dreamy" music at the RR. Like a signal from another dimension finding its way to Twin Peaks somehow (I still think its those mountains...or perhaps those scary phone lines...?)
Similar threads
