I'm not sure any more whom I'm disagreeing with — I don't think it's you, menocu — but this whole idea that works of art are some kind of scam where we're constantly getting faked out and taken to the cleaners by con-men (Lynch, Malick etc.) is just so tiresome, depressing and wrong-headed.

Where's the misogyny?

Yeah, that's exactly what it's like. Thanks—I guess we've all been deluding ourselves. Someone had to snap us out of our collective hallucination…glad you were there to do it.

I doubt it. It seems unlikely, you know? You wouldn't go to all that trouble and reunite the cast just for MacLachlan to do this and then go home.

It's your fault

You lost me at "simplistic storytelling that ordinary viewers enjoy for being more easily digestible."

I'm with you, man!

Repeat to yourself, it's just a show, I should really just relax

The photo in the opening titles. She'll always be listed.

I don't see that it is. But I'm listening if you want to elaborate.

I think the ladder and staircase are unrelated to whatever Doug "found" in the casefiles (meaning, the portion that's relevant to the insurance company). But the squiggles and lines seem to tie that specific adjuster/examiner (Sizemore?) to a specific set of police detectives, suggesting an organized, ongoing…

I don't think so. I think real Coop will give her some incredibly gracious speech of thanks/apology and will have a touching farewell with the kid (in the manner of Harrison Ford and Lukas Haas at the end of Witness).

I really want someone to put together a bunch of freezeframes of those case file pages, with Coop/Doug's scribbles, and, in so doing, figure out whatever it is that allows the Lucky 7 CEO to get wise to Tom Sizemore's scheme (if that's, in fact, what the scribbles reveal).

Wild at Heart is pretty much his weakest effort.

IF that's Major Briggs' body. (I think it probably is, but we don't know for sure. Those fingerprints have been everywhere.)

What is the underlying reason for this constant elementary mistake of confusing "depiction of immorality" with "endorsement of immorality"?

Right, all good points, but I'm still disagreeing slightly with regard to fringe situations like this where 1) the artist is known for obscurity, opaqueness, abstraction, etc; 2) the artist isn't particularly forthcoming or articulate about their process or intentions (like, say, Dylan or Warhol); and 3) the…

His special may have been part of the exit deal (in lieu of more money or something).

"Intentional Fallacy," Susan Sontag (and other subsequent theory): I'm not interested in what the artist is "trying" to "communicate" (which more often than not the artist couldn't begin to tell you); I'm interested in the art itself and what's there.

No. Something will happen to Bob/Coop, in jail, that will trigger it.