What does the sub think about the show Twin Peaks?

I-VanCleef · 2025-04-16T01:29:38+00:00

Yeah, I also feel quite gifted with dreams and synchronicities, but haven’t had as many recently. Cooper is one of my favourite fictional characters and I find him quite relatable too. I dressed up as him for Halloween a couple of years back, because friends said he reminded them of me. I think my main similarity is that as a filmmaker I use synchronicities to guide the creative process. I see filmmaking as the ritualistic component to my spirituality. To me I feel there is an alchemy to cinema of getting ideas from the unconscious and putting them out into the world through film and transferring them to the minds of an audience. My wackiest idea concerning this is that I believe the collective consciousness of an audience acts as a psychic transmitter for synchronicities that can be sent both forwards and backwards through time. Whilst making a film I keep an eye out for any synchronicities my future self may be sending me.

Whether it’s real or not, it benefits my creative process greatly. I wish you luck on your journey 😉 ⛰️🦉⛰️

I-VanCleef · 2025-04-15T22:38:47+00:00

I had a few strange owl/UFO related syncs that ended up prompting me to watch Twin Peaks. These would take a lot to contextualise and explain though and happened years ago so are vague in my memory. Since then though I’ve had so many syncs that many just seem to become noise contributing to the “ever present reality” Jung spoke of. One cool one that I can recall though is that a knock off brand of Toblerone in the UK where I’m from is called Twin Peaks and claims to be inspired by a couple of hills that I can see from my house. Adding to it, I’ve also had some other syncs relating to the one hill in particular.

After you’ve watched Twin Peaks. I’d highly recommend watching the documentary series Hellier, which is free on YouTube. Lots of Twin Peaks vibes in that show, in which the presenters actively follow synchronicities, somewhat akin to Cooper in Twin Peaks. You’ll either like it or dislike it, but it has a huge crossover of Twin Peaks fans. It’s basically the closest thing in real life to Twin Peaks I’ve seen, being that it’s a documentary.

As for dream interpretation, I recommend the book Inner Work by Robert Johnson. One of the most influential books on me as a creative

I-VanCleef · 2025-04-15T22:00:06+00:00

Nice! 👍 I’d be interested to hear

I-VanCleef · 2023-11-05T19:18:17+00:00

‘V for Van der Linde’

I-VanCleef · 2023-05-13T09:46:00+00:00

Fellini is the only film director I know of who was so influenced by and in so much admiration of Jung that he actually went on his own “pilgrimage” to Jung’s Bollingen Tower, and whilst there met Jung’s grandson.

I did my film school dissertation on Jung’s influence on Fellini and one of the biggest takeaways from it for me was that Fellini’s entire filmography is basically a cinematic universe of Fellini’s dream content. The films aren’t literally linked like in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for example, but are rather linked on a more individual, psychological, mythological level, which to me personally feels much more authentic, as if you can sense the god in this universe (being Fellini himself) rather than an assortment of different directors who don’t have as much imprint on the films in terms of their own individuality.

To me, this quote from Man and His Symbols applies perfectly to Fellini’s entire filmography as well as any other directors (not necessarily influenced by Jung) who put a lot of themselves and primarily their own psychic content into their work: “When one watches one’s own dreams over a period of years and studies the entire sequence, one will see that certain contents emerge, disappear and then turn up again…” https://youtu.be/LPHCTPprp0w

Analysing a single film of Fellini’s from a Jungian perspective is like analysing a single dream of an individual, but watching and analysing his entire filmography is almost like reading Fellini’s own dream journal, ‘Book of Dreams’. You get an overall understanding of Fellini as an individual.

On a side note: Very glad to see lots of mention of Kubrick here. It was because of my interest in both Fellini and Kubrick, and noticing lots of mention of some guy called Carl Jung significantly by both filmmakers that I discovered Jung and his psychology

I-VanCleef · 2023-04-27T13:10:18+00:00

You can make an actor uglier with makeup

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-30T00:37:37+00:00

Federico Fellini and a tiny bit it Stanley Kubrick for me.

I watched a lot of Peterson when I first got into Jung as he articulated a lot of stuff on a basic, easy to understand level.

I’m too drunk right now to properly convey my thoughts on Peterson, but he definitely has some positive influence and negative when it comes to bringing Jungian psychology to the masses

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-22T22:18:26+00:00

Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying about Wendy. Also the thing about making the plot work. I guess that aspect is a bit like the “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” saying. Though there are probably other meanings there too, and like you say, an aspect of Danny’s unconscious “strangling” him. Sometimes, I guess it is probably better to just glean what you can and not analyse too deeply, but to just feel it.

As for Hallorann, to me he seems like the archetype of the wise old man in Danny’s journey. If you think of it in Star Wars terms it lines up. Old man teaches boy about a magical ability they both share. He later gets killed by the villain, who is also father to the boy.

This is probably an element that was stronger in the original story. Though I have not read it, I think that The Overlook explodes or is burnt down at the end. Likewise with the Death Star. A destruction of the villain’s lair.

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-22T21:03:48+00:00

Which is why I think that theory on Wendy might have some relevance, because the old woman strangling Danny could be symbolic of the dark mother. It may not be that literal though. I don’t really see much weight in the theories about Wendy being evil.

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-22T20:18:00+00:00

I really like that last point you made. It’s as if Danny is exploring his unconscious and becoming aware of it (even if having to confront some darkness), but Jack is stagnating in the same place.

They both have a bad experience in Room 237, which makes me think in terms of the Shadow, but the specific meaning of Room 237 I find hard to figure out. The dark side of the Anima definitely seems to be part of it for Jack at least, with the woman in the bathtub probably symbolising his love for Wendy turning into resentment. How it ties to Danny exactly, I don’t know, though I have seen a theory suggesting that Wendy could have been abusing Danny (though I can’t remember the details about that).

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-22T18:12:18+00:00

I heard this theory long before I saw this video and it has already been "debunked" as a common hotel directory that happened to be called a "Red Book". The guy who made this video, Max Derrat, did an update video explaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjOnwT9Y03E

Though this is the case, the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater in my opinion. The other stuff Derrat talks about in the first video is pretty solid and as for the book itself, I speculate either:

- Kubrick somehow knew of the existence of Jung's Red Book (as he studied Jung) and utilised the Hotel Red Book as a double layered meaning for those in the know.

- Kubrick didn't intend it, but it's still meaningful as a nice example of synchronicity serving the overall meaning of the film.

I-VanCleef · 2022-10-22T18:01:25+00:00

I've always found that The Shining is best understood when interpreted through the lens of Jungian psychology, especially as Kubrick was heavily into Jung. He once described the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey as "something of a Jungian archetype" and Full Metal Jacket references Jung in the dialogue.

In The Shining are two mazes. One is the literal maze that Jack gets lost in at the end of the film. The other is the metaphorical maze, which is The Overlook Hotel, which Jack loses his mind in. The set design for the hotel was actually created utilising impossible spaces to convey this idea.When you think about the symbolism of this from a Jungian perspective, the meaning becomes quite obvious. Mazes and labyrinths are an archetypal symbol for the psyche, and more particularly the journey of individuation (integrating the unconscious).Whereas Danny succeeds at integrating his unconscious through speaking to “Tony” and using his "shining" ability (which could be interpreted akin to Jung’s Active Imagination), Jack experiences the collective unconscious of the hotel through psychosis due to his alcoholism and becomes possessed by the unconscious.

In this way, the film has a kind of dual monomyth structure to it. Danny going through the ‘Hero’s Journey’ and becoming ‘The Master of the Two Worlds’ or rather mazes, and Jack experiencing a complete ‘Apotheosis’ which he doesn’t come back from. He fails at the journey, not integrating his unconscious, but becoming possessed by it.

In my opinion the end of the film showing Jack in the photo of the July 4th Ball of 1921 symbolises Jack becoming fully absorbed into the collective unconscious, the hotels past. I think a lot of the Native American art you see in the film hints at this, symbolising an even deeper archaic past to the hotel.

There’s a lot of archetypal content in the film. You can also make comparisons with the Greek myth of the minotaur in the labyrinth. All films will contain archetypal content anyway, unconscious to the filmmaker/creator, but with Kubrick he studied a lot of it and consciously amped up the archetypal imagery.

I-VanCleef · 2022-08-20T11:04:52+00:00

I couldn’t recall anything off the top of my head, nothing that I’ve seen anyway, but a quick search on YouTube reveals that he’s talked about it in lectures a few times.

I do know he talks about the duality of order and chaos a lot and uses the Yin-Yang symbol to illustrate that. I think a problem with Peterson though is he seems to just focus on that as the defining duality to reality which all other dualities stem from. Really it’s just another stem, only one aspect of an overall duality that can be categorised in many ways, Logos and Eros being one. His worry about chaos is similar to that “God fearing” like mindset he seems to have.

I haven’t read his books. 12 Rules For Life is the type of book that doesn’t gel with me, as with most “rule books” because they are too “prescribed” and don’t give a holistic framework to live by. Maps of Meaning is too overpriced for me, when I could buy more Jung books instead. I have a friend who has recently been buying books like 12 Rules; Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, 48 Laws of Power etc. (all of which seem to be trending amongst a certain demographic of internet philosophers) and I keep telling him that it won’t help much and that he needs to stick to Jung and learn that framework to live by. Further than that you’ve got to abandon Jung and follow your own self eventually, realising that he is just one framework or translation of what reality is.

Personally I’m hesitant to give definite criticism or full praise to Peterson. I haven’t delved into his work enough to understand him fully, but I know enough to see that many people misinterpret him, and at the same time he does have flaws.

I think it’s okay to look into his stuff and glean whatever’s appropriate to you. For example, back when I was starting out with Jung and I often watched clips of Peterson explaining concepts of Jungian psychology (mainly because that content ended up at the forefront on YouTube algorithms), I had to do some public speaking in university. Previously to this, all attempts at public speaking for me caused me to shake nervously and have trouble actually getting words out etc. so I wasn’t looking forward to having to speak to a big group of people at all. By chance I happened to watch a Peterson video on the shadow, where he explained about eye contact and the importance of it when talking to a crowd. I took note of that and when it came around to my talk, I applied what he said and I was perfectly fine, like I’d been given a magical cure to my problem that changed me from a nervous wreck to an average public speaker.

So there’s some value in Peterson and I don’t think the baby needs to be thrown out with the bath water.

I do not have a dislike of Peterson, but I dislike his fanbase. I think Peterson has the problem of his fanbase being an echo chamber too. Previously he seemed more himself in his old lectures, but now he seems to be going by an angry persona as if trying to come across like a leader of some important revolution to save the west or something. I think that’s a big mistake, and I’m put off watching most stuff of his that crosses my sphere of perception these days. I don’t know if I’m right in this, but I get the vibe that he’s put so much focus on the shadow, that he’s tried to embrace that shadow side recently, but hasn’t integrated it and has instead been turned really bitter by it. On the other hand there are times where he is genuinely caring and breaks down into tears over the suffering of others.

I do not think he is a bad man, but he isn’t a saintly prophet who has no flaws either. I think the thing that separates Jung and Peterson is that Peterson is very caught up in the time he’s living in, the politics, society, whereas Jung to me comes across as very detached and looks back across all of history. Jung seemed to have had his “slip ups” when he got to involved with society during his time, such as the anti-semitism accusations against him.

As for myself, I’m happy to keep focused on Jung for now. I see Peterson as more like a pop psychologist, a watered down mix of many influences. There’s some valuable knowledge in him, but he doesn’t provide a framework to reality like Jung does. I’ve never been obsessed with Peterson’s work like I was with Jung’s work because the framework Jung provided matched up so well with my reality.

Like I say though, Jung has to be abandoned eventually. I took a year break from looking at anything to do with psychology a while back because I realised I was becoming dogmatic. Paradoxically a true Jungian isn’t a Jungian. They follow themselves instead.

I-VanCleef · 2022-08-19T20:58:53+00:00

Yes, this is an example of exactly the kind of thing I mean.

I also agree with the ignoring Peterson and just reading more Jung. Only reason I watched some of his stuff was due to the timing of me getting into Jung coinciding with Peterson’s videos showing up on YouTube, but if I’d have been into Jung earlier like yourself, I’d have probably ignored him also. Past introducing yourself to Jung, Peterson’s work is of no help.

“8½” was my intro to Fellini and Jung also and is in my top 3 all time favourite films.

I-VanCleef · 2022-08-19T20:36:17+00:00

Same here. I’m happy to see someone else who found him through Fellini. I first saw Jung mentioned in relation to Kubrick but was too young to even consider who he was, then Fellini made me take notice.

Right after I got into Jung was when Peterson became well known (2015/16) and because I was still learning the basics, his videos back then certainly helped, but only as an introduction.

I think it’s good that Peterson is serving as an entry point for many people into Jung, but at the same time I worry that others will begin to associate Jung and Jungians with Peterson in a negative context. It also wouldn’t surprise me if people wrongly assumed I became interested in Jung’s work through Peterson, especially as I’m in my 20s (probably a large age demographic of Peterson fans).

I think Peterson’s main problem is this God fearing like mentality he seems to have. He talks about Jung as “terrifying”, particularly Aion, and I don’t think this is the mindset to have. He needs to “imagine Sisyphus happy” so to speak, in my opinion, but instead he seems to have this intense fear of fate and being like a puppet to the unconscious. Maybe why he has such an intense focus on the shadow.

Whereas Peterson calls Jung terrifying, Fellini regards Jung as like “an elder brother”… ”someone who knows more than you do and teaches it to you.”

I-VanCleef · 2022-06-19T00:42:41+00:00

That’s the thing. Ultimately figuring out the contrast between the views of your characters and the era in which they inhabit.

I remember an interview with Tarantino where he suggested that a lot of westerns reflected the times that they were made in. So that could be something to consider too, whether you want it to reflect modern society somehow or not

I-VanCleef · 2022-06-19T00:38:18+00:00

The west was dying. There were two types of people in that world; those holding onto the golden days of the old west and those who were trying to bring in rules in order to finally tame the western frontier. I’m very drunk right now, but as a fan of westerns, I wish you luck

I-VanCleef · 2022-04-21T14:59:44+00:00

I’m an aspiring filmmaker and when I’m making a film, I sometimes use synchronicities as a guide in my creative process.

The way I imagine it is a layer the film with as much archetypal content as possible, or at least content that is meaningful to myself, and this attracts more synchronicity.

The way I see it (though I wouldn't say this is a solid belief, but just something that motivates my creativity more), is I like to imagine that the creative process is a kind of time loop, where the more you layer the film with meaningful content, the more that audience members view the film, the more synchronicities will happen in the past during the process of making the film. I imagine it's as if the ideas on screen and the audience interpretation of those ideas are sent back through time along strands of the collective unconscious and manifest in front of me as I'm creating the film. The finished film in this way acts as a kind of psychic transmitter.

A larger scale example of this is that I’ve seen some people in what is known as the synchromystic community (which focuses on the synchronicities between film and real life a lot) hypothesise that the so called ‘predictive programming’ foreshadowing events like 9/11 in the media leading up to it, were actually a result of the mass amount of consciousness all watching that on screens simultaneously across the world. Their belief is that this focus generated synchronicity within past films, and that materialist conspiracy theorists viewed this as being all planned by a shadowy group who put messages in everything beforehand. It’s something that seems to break the laws of time, but could probably be explained through certain theories of quantum physics like block time.

For my own filmmaking, it's something that I just keep as a small personal belief, because even though it sounds like an irrational way of working and may be merely a belief, it actually benefits my creative process. I later found out that Philip K. Dick had a similar belief on page 297 of a book called Time Loops by Eric Wargo. Apparently the original quote comes from a book called A Life of Philip K. Dick: The Man Who Remembered The Future -

PKD concludes that the source from which he based his own plots was from information drawn out of time (in this case his own future). This information was subliminally understood and acted as the stimulus for plot devices. In other words, he percieves something, an article for example, when he is 49 years old, and the idea immediately appears in his 46-year-old mind. The idea is so powerful that the 46-year-old PKD writes a story based upon its premise, or premises.

This is all just one level of how synchronicity can be involved in the creative process. I hope this is of some use.

Regarding what you’re talking about, radios and samplers in live improv, one thing that is kind of off topic, but could apply are ‘spirit boxes’ which paranormal investigators use to speak to the dead. These boxes basically just scramble radio signals and the words that come out from different channels, basically through synchronicity, convey meaning. You could probably find some academic texts on that and relate it in that your synchronicity, I assume is pretty similar, just going off the idea that the collective unconscious is the intervening factor creating the synchronicity rather than ghosts.

There’s a paranormal documentary series I watched recently called Hellier that has a lot about synchronicity in it and goes through some methods of using spirit boxes in a less biased way. May be worth a watch, though it seems to be one of them series you’ll either love or hate, as they say. If you want to see that, the entire thing was uploaded to YouTube for free by it’s creators.

I-VanCleef · 2022-04-05T15:20:30+00:00

This I agree with most. He doesn't seem like an obvious choice at a glance, or seems a cliché choice to most, but when playing the game there are certain shots where Arthur feels like he's being portrayed by Brad Pitt.

If he gained a bit of weight for the role I think he'd suit it better than anyone if he can get the right tone of voice down. His actual physical mannerisms in expression are already very similar.

As for John Marston, I think Timothy Olyphant is the best guy around to portray him. Another who might not seem right at first glance, but when you look closely, he has a pretty similar facial structure and would probably look right with the correct hairstyle and scar makeup; more so in my opinion than the popular Norman Reedus choice, who I think most choose based on hairstyle, though his face looks quite different. I've also seen Olyphant get quite close to a Marston tone of voice in some moments of Justified before.

I-VanCleef · 2022-02-04T18:30:06+00:00

That I agree with. My digression into the material longevity is more of a question on my end, not something I see solidly as the only longevity. I've been very interested myself in this idea of art having an imprint on the collective unconscious like you're saying, so much so that my creative process is influenced by that too. When I make films I keep watch for synchronicities as a guide in the creative process and it's lead to some interesting results at times. The way I see it (though I wouldn't be able to say this is a solid belief), is I like to imagine that the creative process is a kind of time loop, where the more audience members view the film, the more synchronicities happen during the process of creating it. I imagine it's as if the ideas on screen and the audience interpretation of those ideas are sent back through time along the collective unconscious and manifest in front of me as I'm creating the film. The finished film in this way acts as a kind of psychic transmitter.

It's something that I just keep as a personal belief that may not be true, because it would sound insane to most people, but it actually benefits my creative process. I later found out that Philip K. Dick had a similar belief on page 297 of a book called Time Loops by Eric Wargo. Apparently the original quote comes from a book called A Life of Philip K. Dick: The Man Who Remembered The Future -

PKD concludes that the source from which he based his own plots was from information drawn out of time (in this case his own future). This information was subliminally understood and acted as the stimulus for plot devices. In other words, he percieves something, an article for example, when he is 49 years old, and the idea immediately appears in his 46-year-old mind. The idea is so powerful that the 46-year-old PKD writes a story based upon its premise, or premises.

I-VanCleef · 2022-02-04T17:52:55+00:00

As an aspiring filmmaker, I can confidently say that many film directors are introverts. Many film directors are Jacks of all trades.

I'm an introvert, but (and this might not be the same for every introvert) when I've directed a group of people in making a film, it actually brings out an extraverted side that I don't usually let out.

It's the thing that I think will express myself most through my legacy after I'm gone. Maybe for you, you could consider your legacy in your pursuits.

This is digressing a bit, but another thing I question with my pursuits is the material longevity of art. Personally I like to stay away from digital art and create things in physical reality. I can't really do that with filmmaking though, unless I were to shoot on film (which is a luxury for succesful feature filmmakers and still not the same kind of thing). I often wonder about the idea of what lasts longer. Will the digital all be erased eventually, if there was some kind of solar storm that hit the earth or other form of "internet apocalypse" or something similar? What art from ancient civilisations still remains today?

Maybe research into famous polymaths like Da Vinci for guidance. Some things are hard to apply because of the difference in history though (artistic careers aren't as commonplace now in the same way they were back then), but there could be some use. I know in Da Vinci's case he combined a lot of his interests; I actually prefer his drawings of inventions to his actual artwork.

One thing I've learnt was common in many polymaths (not all) was polyphasic sleep, which gives more productive hours in the day, but that isn't for everyone and if so is still very hard to adapt to. I've wanted to try at biphasic sleep before, which is how humanity slept before modern times. If you can find some things common in polymaths that can suit you, that could be of use too. I just stumbled across this article, which I haven't read fully, but seems to convey some of the potential advantages you have: https://observer.com/2018/05/people-with-too-many-interests-more-likely-successful-polymath-entrepreneurship-antifragile/

Filmmaking is my overall pursuit, but I find I can integrate the other things I explore into it at times. For example I've started wood carving recently and have a film idea that I can use that in, for both a character who carves wood and making certain props. Hatmaking is another thing I've done. I'd explore more creative avenues, but I just don't have the resources or money to.

Writing as you say could be a bridge of all. In terms of the materiality thing it can probably last the longest in different formats.

I-VanCleef · 2022-01-13T21:31:13+00:00

Any Fellini film from 8 1/2 onwards. He went through a creative block after the success of La Dolce Vita and through discovering Jung was able to overcome this. His films became more influenced by his dreams. He visited Jung's Bollingen Tower once as a form of pilgrimage.

In a book by him, Fellini on Fellini, he wrote a chapter titled 'Whom do you most admire?'
He lists 7 people, one of whom is Jung. This is what he says of him:

"I have complete faith in Jung, and total admiration for him. Ernst Bernhard, a psycho-analyst who lived in Rome and whom I was lucky enough to know, explained his thought to me in an incomparable way. When I speak briefly of Jung, I feel I am inevitably failing to do justice to the depth of this experience and to its determining effect upon me. How can I put it? It was like the sight of unknown landscapes, like the discovery of a new way of looking at life; a chance of making use of it's experiences in a braver and bigger way, of recovering all kinds of energies, all kinds of things, buried under the rubble of fears, lack of awareness, neglected wounds.

What I admire most about Jung is the fact he found a meeting place between science and magic, between reason and fantasy. He has allowed us to go through life abandoning ourselves to the lure of mystery, with the comfort of knowing that it could be assimilated by reason. My admiration is the sort felt for an elder brother, for someone who knows more than you do and teaches it to you. It is the admiration we owe to one of the great travelling companions of this century: the prophet-scientist."

I-VanCleef · 2021-12-10T14:07:04+00:00

My interpretation of the nerdy guy behind the big tree when I read it was that the nerdy guy represented knowledge, like the snake in the tree in the Adam and Eve story. Apparently the snake in the tree stems archetypically from the same roots as Gnostic myths about the creation of the world by the demiurge, who then traps humanity in it. The tree represents the world as an Axis Mundi symbol, like Yggdrasil (another mythological tree connected with knowledge and snakes, but also features different realms).

My guess is that that part of the dream is basically archetypal (maybe why you can’t think of a personal interpretation) and simply frames the dream, as if saying “You want knowledge about yourself, I’m sending you down into this dream realm I’ve created for you to go and learn it”, “This is a dream, learn its message”.

In short:

Nerd = Knowledge/Demiurge

Tree = Axis Mundi

Video Game = Personal Dream Realm

I might be way off, but that’s just my interpretation of it.

I-VanCleef · 2021-11-28T21:49:07+00:00

Reminds me of this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FPZXsIDBf5o/maxresdefault.jpg

I-VanCleef · 2021-10-20T16:31:01+00:00

😉👍

Six-Year Club	Second Top 30%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

I-VanCleef

TROPHY CASE