Does he exist in the reality section? No.

BUT, kmkmiller, I think you make an excellent point that while some things are accidental, the underlying ideas are not.

Of course, Ed can't have been that important to the original idea because, well, he was written out in the pilot.

The Joe/Ed scene could have been included later on in another episode of a series.

Gee whiz guys. You really would have thought the telescope was enough, it even looks like Ed's hood of black hair in there in the silhouette.

it makes sense that it is Ed. He's spying on Joe's meeting with Diane.

out of all the other options:

Louise
Accident/no one.
Coco
Ruth

Isn't Ed just the logical choice? I don't get the resistance to it being Ed save for my stylistic hubris and that we naturally don't like things to be resolved in the Lynch verse.

Well fine. I'm a hot head, and nothing is ever for absolute certain in the Lynch verse.

I still think it's Ed, so there!!!

If the person in the window seemed to have a telescope, then I'd agree it was probably Ed...

The telescope Ed has doesn't mean he takes a telescope every where he goes, it means he practices surveillance....and keeps track of the history of the world... Crazy stuff like that that makes him the most logical choice.

kmkmiller wrote:Isn't Ed just the logical choice? I don't get the resistance to it being Ed save for my stylistic hubris and that we naturally don't like things to be resolved in the Lynch verse.

For what it's worth, I agree that -- out of the characters we meet in the film -- Ed is the most likely choice. So I'm not resistant to it being Ed vs. some other character.

I just don't think it's any of the characters we meet in the film. The figure doesn't look like any known character to me (though granted, they're so poorly-seen, they could be just about any character), and -- more importantly -- the mannerisms of the person in the window don't suggest "watching" to me. They suggest "going about my business in my kitchen." :)

I don't think it is who is most likely to be watching, it's who has the most reason to be watching. That it is Ed makes sense due to the telescope, but I can't wrap my mind around why he would be watching. Sure, Joe has his "history of the world" book, and (in my opinion at least) Joe is in reality the hitman for Camilla's murder while in the dream Ed is the failed hitman/Joe shoots him on the Castigliane Brothers' order placing him in charge of protecting Camilla, but since we only saw Ed in the dream, we don't really know what his true motives toward Diane, Joe, Camilla or anyone really are. And since all the other characters are completely different in reality from how they are in the dream, how do we know that's even Ed's office and Ed's telescope?

kmkmiller, I'm very curious. You firmly believe it's Ed. What do you think Ed is watching for? Why is he interested in this hit? I don't mind at all if it ties into your own overall theory on the film, since my thinking it's Louise anxiously watching does too. I mean, Ed is a pretty unexplored character. Who are those other people in that building where the shooting occurred? Is it some sort of security company?

Why??

Hmmmm.., as a plot element alone, I don't know why anyone would be watching, ... But in combination to the telescope, and that Ed does keep a history of the world... I suppose I don't have a great answer, there are just elements in Lynch's work that exist as supernatural forces. I couldn't tell you why Killer BOB does what he does in twin peaks, for instance.

Let me just add another wrinkle here... Dan says there's a man in back of this place making everything happen, yet the bum is played by a woman, how can a bum make anything happen...This brings up my whole idea of the thing, but I do think Ed is that man. It's not a woman, BHL, or Louise... It's Ed... He's the one making everything happen, just this stuff for this Guy, it's just a thing.

Interesting, thanks. True, Ed being some sort of intangible fateful entity makes a lot of sense in the context of him only appearing in the dream. But Dan only appeared in the dream, too, and then once more a few moments before we see Ed behind the window, so maybe he and Dan are connected somehow? Do you think Dan just represents the victim (Diane) who all this stuff is happening to?

Diane is not a victim, well she's sort of a victim the same way Leland is Bob's victim in Twin Peaks, but that's a whole different discussion I think, and a discussion that can't really be resolved anyway.

I'm thinking i need to start an article on twin peaks here somewhere because that is, by comparison, a more rudimentary way of getting at how some of these characters are connected.

You ask if Dan and Ed are connected, yes and no. There is a moment in the black lodge where dale runs into a Leland Palmer who has not killed anyone... Dan has more in common with that Leland than Ed.. I really just need to write it all out, but yeah Dan is a fugue like iteration of Diane. We all kind of agree on that, I think.

To say it's Louise Bonner or Ed or anyone in the window is completely ridiculous. There's a figure in the window. Period. Speculating about who it's supposed to be is a waste of time.

By this logic, then is every extra in the film who happens to appear in the background of a shot supposed to represent someone else?

You know when you're talking about a director and a movie where the extras in the club silencio scene turn out to be Laura Palmer, Ronette Pulaski (from Twin Pesks), and Henry from Eraserhead, then it really isn't THAT ridiculous to do a little over-thinking about that creepy dude in the window!

Thanks for the wake up call, Jm.

jmvideo wrote:To say it's Louise Bonner or Ed or anyone in the window is completely ridiculous. There's a figure in the window. Period. Speculating about who it's supposed to be is a waste of time.

By this logic, then is every extra in the film who happens to appear in the background of a shot supposed to represent someone else?

Fair enough about the pointless speculation, but why did we as audience members notice this "extra" and not one of those other extras? It occurred at a big transition scene. It's definitely worth noting, and perhaps worth speculating in the context of other Lynch films if it is at all possible that it was an accident that became useful to the director. The director definitely noticed it:

kmkmiller wrote:Basically, here is what I have to say. Lynch has ideas. Accidents can fit into those ideas in those magical moments, but accidents do NOT change the idea.

So the question remains, even if it was an accident, WHY did Lynch leave it there, it's something he surely would have noticed during the shooting, someone would have pointed it out to him, there's 2 other ADs and continuity guys all on the scene. Accident? Ok, so why leave it in the shot?

kmkmiller wrote:...the extras in the club silencio scene turn out to be...Henry from Eraserhead.

Really!? Screen shot please!

oh man... i could have made the same point without dragging henry into it, but now i've gone and done it.

heavy sigh.

ok, this wasn't my idea.



henry is on the left with a paper bag in front of him (i guess henry carries stuff around in a paper bad, no? yes?). i know it's not a great likeness, but oh well.

I agree the figure in the window is worth noting. I just think it's a stretch to say it's a specific character in the film.

Those are real apartments behind Winkie's/Cesars and it could have been a happy accident. A real resident of the apartment wound up in the shot and Lynch liked it, so left it in.

What bothers me about the Louise Bonner / Ed theory is that those apartments behind Winkies have nothing to do with the film. So there's no reason why any of the characters would be living there.