A Clue that the Lamp Lady scene is a flashback?
Jun 30, 2005 11:52 AM
0 0
Placing the lamp lady scene before the dream sure makes sense regarding the cast of De Rosa's costume. Also the cutting of scenes shortly before the coffee making (Diane looking at Diane) is challenging the straightness of the timeline. Since we later (at night) see Diane with the coffee cup at the couch we could argue that the Lamp Lady scene up to the point where Diane is hallucinating Camilla ("You've come back?") is a flashback and with the cut-over to coffee making Diane we return to real-time. This brings about the question of what to do with the wake-up scene. Who did really knock Diane out her dream? Or is the bedroom scene still part of the flashback?
To me the theory that the knocking, wake up and neighbour scene is one consistent stream of time leave the least amount of questions.
The similar clothing? I am not sure if that's enough evidence for a new timeline. Perhaps De Rosa likes to wear these casuals and she is wearing them home often.
Even if we assume the box taking took place before Diane's dream I don't see how it would affect major aspects of the plot. We do see the blue key sitting on the coffee table and it still clues us into something happened to Camilla and the detectives are after Diane. Unless we follow a different interpretation of the Winkie's hitman scene.
One more thing to the "flashbacks are not filling in the periphery" theory. Such thinking didn't appeal to me while discussing the three weeks scenario.
But now I found more support for it. In the masturbation scene just before we pan over to Diane the camera slides along the backdrop and the kitchen table is getting into focus (left pic).
There we see the opened coffee tin with a white plastic spoon sticking out. In our approved timeline the masturbation happened after the couch nudity where Diane is shown with a glass of spiked coke, so no coffee making is assumed. What stroke me was that the kitchen table arrangement is exactly the same as in the coffee making scene which obviously happened weeks later. So perhaps as the packing boxes are still visible during the flashback to the couch scene, the kitchen table stays likewise unchanged during the flashback to the masturbation.
Either this or we gotta adjust our timeline once more. ;)
To me the theory that the knocking, wake up and neighbour scene is one consistent stream of time leave the least amount of questions.
The similar clothing? I am not sure if that's enough evidence for a new timeline. Perhaps De Rosa likes to wear these casuals and she is wearing them home often.
Even if we assume the box taking took place before Diane's dream I don't see how it would affect major aspects of the plot. We do see the blue key sitting on the coffee table and it still clues us into something happened to Camilla and the detectives are after Diane. Unless we follow a different interpretation of the Winkie's hitman scene.
One more thing to the "flashbacks are not filling in the periphery" theory. Such thinking didn't appeal to me while discussing the three weeks scenario.
But now I found more support for it. In the masturbation scene just before we pan over to Diane the camera slides along the backdrop and the kitchen table is getting into focus (left pic).
There we see the opened coffee tin with a white plastic spoon sticking out. In our approved timeline the masturbation happened after the couch nudity where Diane is shown with a glass of spiked coke, so no coffee making is assumed. What stroke me was that the kitchen table arrangement is exactly the same as in the coffee making scene which obviously happened weeks later. So perhaps as the packing boxes are still visible during the flashback to the couch scene, the kitchen table stays likewise unchanged during the flashback to the masturbation.
Either this or we gotta adjust our timeline once more. ;)
Jul 1, 2005 3:34 AM
0 0
[quote]The boxes are a mysterious concept too. They appear almost unmoved in the sequence of flashbacks after Diane awakes. If she's moving in or moving out she's taking her sweet time doing it, it seems.[/quote] That's something to think about.
[quote]In our approved timeline the masturbation happened after the couch nudity where Diane is shown with a glass of spiked coke, so no coffee making is assumed. What stroke me was that the kitchen table arrangement is exactly the same as in the coffee making scene which obviously happened weeks later.[/quote] There's an approved timeline? What is it?
[quote]In our approved timeline the masturbation happened after the couch nudity where Diane is shown with a glass of spiked coke, so no coffee making is assumed. What stroke me was that the kitchen table arrangement is exactly the same as in the coffee making scene which obviously happened weeks later.[/quote] There's an approved timeline? What is it?
Jul 1, 2005 7:52 AM
0 0
[QUOTE] The boxes are a mysterious concept too. They appear almost unmoved in the sequence of flashbacks after Diane awakes. If she's moving in or moving out she's taking her sweet time doing it, it seems. [/QUOTE]
i thought the boxes were purposely unmoved in a 3 week timeframe, to show that all diane did was sleeping and drinking coffee (yes, perhaps some junk food to stay alive), and staring at the blue key. that demonstrates her psychological condition after seeing the key.
don't we all have such experience some time in our past? not 3 weeks, but 3 hours or a couple days?
i thought the boxes were purposely unmoved in a 3 week timeframe, to show that all diane did was sleeping and drinking coffee (yes, perhaps some junk food to stay alive), and staring at the blue key. that demonstrates her psychological condition after seeing the key.
don't we all have such experience some time in our past? not 3 weeks, but 3 hours or a couple days?
Jul 1, 2005 11:08 AM
0 0
Diane/Betty/Rita/Camille/Adam are all the same person. Daine had Aunt Ruth murdered for either her money or because she looked the other way at the abuse.
Ruth is dead on the bed in the dream (long, brown hair), Diane kills herself in remorse and guilt.
Aunt Ruth always checks out when Betty checks in.
About the only thing real in the movie is the script she reads detailing the abuse from her fathers friend, her anguish, and her suicide.
Although it doesn't explain the lamp lady
Ruth is dead on the bed in the dream (long, brown hair), Diane kills herself in remorse and guilt.
Aunt Ruth always checks out when Betty checks in.
About the only thing real in the movie is the script she reads detailing the abuse from her fathers friend, her anguish, and her suicide.
Although it doesn't explain the lamp lady
Jul 1, 2005 8:07 PM
0 0
The changing hair, she just looks "better" in the dream.
Jul 7, 2005 4:41 PM
0 0
moleculesThe changing hair, she just looks "better" in the dream.
it was filmed a year later, and DL and the actress agreed not to bother about buying a wig
also the only shirt handy is a men's shirt.
sorry to spoil it, but this is a possible explanation. (i did suggest AC/DC because of the shirt earlier)
Jul 7, 2005 5:55 PM
0 0
BobWho did really knock Diane out her dream? Or is the bedroom scene still part of the flashback?It's possible that Diane is avoiding answering the door.
To me the theory that the knocking, wake up and neighbour scene is one consistent stream of time leave the least amount of questions.
Let's for a minute assume that the knocks on the door at the end, as the old couple arrive, are real. Just as we assume that the knocks that wake Diane up are real. When the 'little people' knocks begin, Diane doesn't seem too eager to jump up and answer them. Why then should we believe that she would wake-up due to knocking at her door in the morning and go to answer it?
We could make an argument that Diane isn't answering her door to anyone for whatever reason. Could be that she's in a pretty bad depression and doesn't fancy answering it. Could be that she's real hungover and doesn't want to see anybody.
Perhaps Diane is hiding from a Landlord trying to evict her.
Sometimes the solutions that leave the least questions are the ones worth questioning the most. ;)
BobThe similar clothing? I am not sure if that's enough evidence for a new timeline. Perhaps De Rosa likes to wear these casuals and she is wearing them home often.I'm not sure whether I'm arguing a whole new timeline.
A couple of things from my POV on the whole "three weeks" thing:
1. We don't know what the three weeks is supposed to seperate. Is it three weeks since Diane last saw the Lamp Lady? Is it three weeks since Diane borrowed the dishes? Is it three weeks since the Lamp Lady asked for them back? I think that it seems very difficult to assume on any of these (or other) options.
2. If we don't know what it's supposed to seperate, how can we draw inferences from it?
I don't necessarily mean to argue for a new timeline. More I am arguing for an abandonment of ALL timelines that rely on the "three weeks" comment. I'm calling it out. I'm saying that any theories based on it are unreliable.
BobEven if we assume the box taking took place before Diane's dream I don't see how it would affect major aspects of the plot. We do see the blue key sitting on the coffee table and it still clues us into something happened to Camilla and the detectives are after Diane. Unless we follow a different interpretation of the Winkie's hitman scene.Forget the Winkies scene for a minute.
Here's an inference that maybe we can draw from the three weeks connection, (flashback or not):
Detectives were looking for Diane three weeks ago. Detectives have been apparently looking for Diane in the last couple of days. From the Lamp Lady's comments we can safely assume on both occasions the detectives were the same people. Assumption generally made: if something happened to Camilla, it happened inside those three weeks.
Logical conclusion we can draw?
The detectives were NOT looking for Diane for her involvement in any attempted 'hit' on Camilla.
This seems sensible, no?
Then the question opens out ...
If the detectives are looking for Diane, are they detectives in the assumed LAPD sense, and if not, are they really detectives and why are they looking for Diane?
ps. Sorry it took me so long to bring a substantive response. Strugglin' 4 time lately.
Jul 8, 2005 12:01 PM
0 0
pegasus82it was filmed a year later, and DL and the actress agreed not to bother about buying a wigDude, I'm calling bullshit on that. ;)
also the only shirt handy is a men's shirt.
sorry to spoil it, but this is a possible explanation. (i did suggest AC/DC because of the shirt earlier)
If you are prepared to believe that Lynch let it slide, then keep dreaming mate. I'm sure that there were no continuity polaroids or whatever they use, and that the budget didn't allow a female-style fastening shirt. They just told the Lamp Lady to show in whatever she was wearing and with whatever hairstyle she had ...
Her hair practically looks like Lynch himself spent 10 minutes hacking at it with a big pair of scissors over a sink.
Jul 8, 2005 12:17 PM
0 0
perhaps there is some clue in the 'making od MD' DVD they you have? whether it is a 10 min fix?
i wasn't suggesting that DL was being lousy and let it slip. DL might have have noticed the difference and decided not to do anything about it, and leave it up to an open interpretation -- since there is no fundamental inconsistency.
i wasn't suggesting that DL was being lousy and let it slip. DL might have have noticed the difference and decided not to do anything about it, and leave it up to an open interpretation -- since there is no fundamental inconsistency.
Jul 8, 2005 4:40 PM
0 0
"blu"Let's for a minute assume that the knocks on the door at the end, as the old couple arrive, are real. Just as we assume that the knocks that wake Diane up are real. When the 'little people' knocks begin, Diane doesn't seem too eager to jump up and answer them. Why then should we believe that she would wake-up due to knocking at her door in the morning and go to answer it?a) knocking on one's door might cause a different reaction at day time and at night
b) Diane is more hesitant after the lamp lady pushed her worries
c) Diane's anti-psychotic medication (that made her irrationally open the door to the neighbor) lost impact after 10 cups of dang strong coffee ;)
"blu"Detectives were looking for Diane three weeks ago. Detectives have been apparently looking for Diane in the last couple of days. From the Lamp Lady's comments we can safely assume on both occasions the detectives were the same people. Assumption generally made: if something happened to Camilla, it happened inside those three weeks.Not entirely logical, methinks. As you said, we don't know what the three weeks is supposed to seperate. If it's a reference to the time the switch took place it opens the possibility that the lamp lady had come by sometime inside the three weeks to initially tell Diane about the detectives. Hence we can't be sure when they really started to look for Diane. In this case an involvement with Camilla's death/disappearance is a valid assumption.
Logical conclusion we can draw?
The detectives were NOT looking for Diane for her involvement in any attempted 'hit' on Camilla.
Jul 10, 2005 1:02 PM
0 0
Bob BrookerNot entirely logical, methinks. As you said, we don't know what the three weeks is supposed to seperate. If it's a reference to the time the switch took place it opens the possibility that the lamp lady had come by sometime inside the three weeks to initially tell Diane about the detectives. Hence we can't be sure when they really started to look for Diane. In this case an involvement with Camilla's death/disappearance is a valid assumption.
I've been waiting for an appropriate moment to revive my thread, Brainstorm: Detectives; this spot looks close enough. It's a mixture of serious and comic theories, which died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
I had trouble with outline formatting from another word processor, which got lost in the posting; so I'll try starting over as a new thread. Look for it momentarily.
Jul 10, 2005 6:31 PM
0 0
[quote=pegasus]perhaps there is some clue in the 'making od MD' DVD they you have? whether it is a 10 min fix?
i wasn't suggesting that DL was being lousy and let it slip. DL might have have noticed the difference and decided not to do anything about it, and leave it up to an open interpretation -- since there is no fundamental inconsistency.[/quote]There?s nothing in the Making Of pertaining to the Lamp Lady.
What you suggest is something that I also suggested a while back. Now, I?m not ruling it out entirely, but I think that there are a couple of connections based on and around the changing hair that make it seem intentional. If it?s a coincidence then it really is a magical thing. Some people don?t believe that coincidences happen ? kinda like in the words of one of the cops from Lost Highway ? ?There?s no such thing as a bad coincidence?. I do believe coincidences happen, but, sometimes the strength of something steps over a marker beyond which point it?s difficult to believe in a coincidence. This is one of those times.
I?ll go further to explain soon.
It?s partly based around the cutting of Camilla?s hair.
Even if we bypass the three week comment entirely, we are still left with a situation where a period of time has passed, seemingly at least a few days ? going by the Lamp Lady?s question ?Where have you been??, and the tone with which it is asked ? between the visits of the detectives.
I think that this delay casts a doubt over the intentions of the detectives. If we take an initial view that ?something? has happened to Camilla in the recent preceding days, I believe that it clues us in to the detectives wanting to speak to Diane over a different matter. It?s then feasible to go a step further and say that if the detectives don?t want to speak to Diane over a Camilla issue, it?s entirely possible that there is no Camilla issue.
Maybe that does lead us to looking at another interpretation of the Winkies scene.
Possibly it leads us to considering a double-cross by Joe. (i.e. took the money but made no hit)
It certainly opens it up.
i wasn't suggesting that DL was being lousy and let it slip. DL might have have noticed the difference and decided not to do anything about it, and leave it up to an open interpretation -- since there is no fundamental inconsistency.[/quote]There?s nothing in the Making Of pertaining to the Lamp Lady.
What you suggest is something that I also suggested a while back. Now, I?m not ruling it out entirely, but I think that there are a couple of connections based on and around the changing hair that make it seem intentional. If it?s a coincidence then it really is a magical thing. Some people don?t believe that coincidences happen ? kinda like in the words of one of the cops from Lost Highway ? ?There?s no such thing as a bad coincidence?. I do believe coincidences happen, but, sometimes the strength of something steps over a marker beyond which point it?s difficult to believe in a coincidence. This is one of those times.
I?ll go further to explain soon.
It?s partly based around the cutting of Camilla?s hair.
BobNot entirely logical, methinks. As you said, we don't know what the three weeks is supposed to seperate. If it's a reference to the time the switch took place it opens the possibility that the lamp lady had come by sometime inside the three weeks to initially tell Diane about the detectives. Hence we can't be sure when they really started to look for Diane. In this case an involvement with Camilla's death/disappearance is a valid assumption.Gee, I don?t know Bob.
Even if we bypass the three week comment entirely, we are still left with a situation where a period of time has passed, seemingly at least a few days ? going by the Lamp Lady?s question ?Where have you been??, and the tone with which it is asked ? between the visits of the detectives.
I think that this delay casts a doubt over the intentions of the detectives. If we take an initial view that ?something? has happened to Camilla in the recent preceding days, I believe that it clues us in to the detectives wanting to speak to Diane over a different matter. It?s then feasible to go a step further and say that if the detectives don?t want to speak to Diane over a Camilla issue, it?s entirely possible that there is no Camilla issue.
Maybe that does lead us to looking at another interpretation of the Winkies scene.
Possibly it leads us to considering a double-cross by Joe. (i.e. took the money but made no hit)
It certainly opens it up.
Jul 11, 2005 6:45 AM
0 0
"blu"I think that this delay casts a doubt over the intentions of the detectives.
Let's just go with the idea Camilla went missing and LAPD is trying Diane for information. The detectives came by a few days ago but then Diane refused to answer the door. I think it doesn't need more than 4 days to anger the Lamp Lady if she herself was trying to ask for her stuff like once a day. Anyway, the detectives are inferring Diane's not home or is holing up inside. What would their next step be like? Would they get a warrant to breaking into the house right away? As long as there's no hard proof for Diane being linked to Camilla's disappearance they probably would first set Sierra Bonita under surveillance and that might account for the delay.
Jul 11, 2005 2:22 PM
0 0
I think Bob's scenario is the most likely and don't see any timeline problems. Wasn't the three weeks a reference by the lamp lady to the time its been since they exchanged apts? Enough time to have some boxes still unpacked perhaps?. I may be wrong. The shirt and the hair are possibly due to the time lag between the filming of both scenes or DL is laying red herrings.
Besides, it all there in the movie. All the gaps that puzzle us in this movie are really there, but hidden. I think the scene with Betty, Rita and the lamp lady at Sierra Bonita could easily reflect the cops first visit there. Diane may have hidden and witnessed them (there was enough hiding going on) and/or Del Rosa may have "left a note" for her, if she wasn't in. Either way, they had called on her and Diane was aware. This also explains Rita's fear of the cops. (Betty, being perfect could not be afraid) Diane could have spent the next few days hiding from everyone.
Infact, I think it may have been after the cops first visit that Diane summons the courage to go find the key, bring it home, hit the booze or drugs, fall asleep and dream.
When she wakes up to the neighbor's knock, Diane answers the door groggy but without concern. It is after she sees the key, finds out about the cop's second visit, has the painful flashbacks and is left alone to reflect on her unfulfilled dream and sordid reality that she flips and kills herself. The final knocking may well have been the cop's third visit...at least it could easily have been what Diane thought.
Besides, it all there in the movie. All the gaps that puzzle us in this movie are really there, but hidden. I think the scene with Betty, Rita and the lamp lady at Sierra Bonita could easily reflect the cops first visit there. Diane may have hidden and witnessed them (there was enough hiding going on) and/or Del Rosa may have "left a note" for her, if she wasn't in. Either way, they had called on her and Diane was aware. This also explains Rita's fear of the cops. (Betty, being perfect could not be afraid) Diane could have spent the next few days hiding from everyone.
Infact, I think it may have been after the cops first visit that Diane summons the courage to go find the key, bring it home, hit the booze or drugs, fall asleep and dream.
When she wakes up to the neighbor's knock, Diane answers the door groggy but without concern. It is after she sees the key, finds out about the cop's second visit, has the painful flashbacks and is left alone to reflect on her unfulfilled dream and sordid reality that she flips and kills herself. The final knocking may well have been the cop's third visit...at least it could easily have been what Diane thought.
Jul 11, 2005 8:43 PM
0 0
LancespearmanI think Bob's scenario is the most likely and don't see any timeline problems. Wasn't the three weeks a reference by the lamp lady to the time its been since they exchanged apts?Nope.
No reference is made to an apartment swap in the latter part of the film.
LancespearmanBesides, it all there in the movie. All the gaps that puzzle us in this movie are really there, but hidden.I don't necessarily agree with you there Lance.
For one I think that some of the gaps can only be filled in from a knowledge of other films.
And another, Lynch deliberately lays on a mystery that has no definite solution. He structures the film so that it can be read legitimately in a number of ways. Some of the gaps can only be overcome by building our own bridge.
And we've all got our own design. ;)
Jul 12, 2005 9:30 AM
0 0
i took the 3 weeks as referring to the apartment swap. but of course, you can argue that the swap was only mentioned in the dream and might not have happened at all, the what about the boxes and collecting the lamp and ashtray?
-- either they swapped in a real hurry, or the lamp lady moved out to another apartment in the same complex.
and 3 weeks refers to the last time they have seen each other or diane has been in 'hiding' (and didnt bother to open the boxes)
-- either they swapped in a real hurry, or the lamp lady moved out to another apartment in the same complex.
and 3 weeks refers to the last time they have seen each other or diane has been in 'hiding' (and didnt bother to open the boxes)
Jul 12, 2005 10:57 AM
0 0
I took it that way too Pegasus. Even though the actual statement occurs in the dream and therefore is not necessarily true, I think it is sufficiently buttressed by the fact that she returns to collect some of her stuff...as in stuff that was left behind during the move.
Obviously there are a thousand other possible explanations of that scene. To my mind that seems to be the most appropriate. It is fine if anyone disagrees. When I first saw MD I was convinced it was not rubbish. I was also determined to find out what the creator was trying to say. The way I see it whatever explanation makes the most sense in the larger frame of things is the one I will go with.
And, I have noticed a trend in this movie. A sort of key to unlocking most of its puzzles that is that whatever we are not sure of in the real scenes is usually echoed in the dream parts....the characters are NOT the same and that's what is the biggest problem to overcome..but the acts, places and emotions are all spot on. Lynch even clues us to this by clearly letting us realise that in the dream version, more than anything else, names are really switched around.
My thoughts... but it is okay to disagree.
Obviously there are a thousand other possible explanations of that scene. To my mind that seems to be the most appropriate. It is fine if anyone disagrees. When I first saw MD I was convinced it was not rubbish. I was also determined to find out what the creator was trying to say. The way I see it whatever explanation makes the most sense in the larger frame of things is the one I will go with.
And, I have noticed a trend in this movie. A sort of key to unlocking most of its puzzles that is that whatever we are not sure of in the real scenes is usually echoed in the dream parts....the characters are NOT the same and that's what is the biggest problem to overcome..but the acts, places and emotions are all spot on. Lynch even clues us to this by clearly letting us realise that in the dream version, more than anything else, names are really switched around.
My thoughts... but it is okay to disagree.
Jul 12, 2005 1:14 PM
0 0
bluNope.
No reference is made to an apartment swap in the latter part of the film.I don't necessarily agree with you there Lance.
For one I think that some of the gaps can only be filled in from a knowledge of other films.
And another, Lynch deliberately lays on a mystery that has no definite solution. He structures the film so that it can be read legitimately in a number of ways. Some of the gaps can only be overcome by building our own bridge.
And we've all got our own design. ;)
[center] So.... Lynch would just want "us" to "try" to "create" a sort of common "HARMONY" by exchanging "ways" of "imaginating" ??
hehehe
'like it !
[/center]
Dec 10, 2005 7:24 PM
0 0
Welcome to the madhouse, Pistoff!
Regardless of what DL wanted, the harmony here depends on a realization that the other guy's theory is just as valid as your own, even if it is the exact opposite. Otherwise, the board can be pretty disharmonious at times.
As for the topic of this thread: I feel that 3 weeks is the time that passed since the Lamp Lady made the apartment switch official. Originally, Lamp Lady was rooming with Camilla in #17, and Dianne moved into #12 to be close to Camilla. Gradually, more and more often, Dianne slept over, forcing Lamp Lady to sleep in #12. Camilla never wanted that kind of thing with Dianne; so, immediately after the switch, she moved in with Adam. (The engagement to Adam was probably a sham excuse to spare Dianne from knowing the real reason for Camilla's departure---i.e., she didn't like Dianne that much.) That sent Dianne into a deep depression, so she quit unpacking, answering the door, bathing, etc.; hired a hitman, and had the dream twice. All that took place in three weeks. Makes sense to me; but your theory is just as good if it works for you.
pistoff[center]So.... Lynch would just want "us" to "try" to "create" a sort of common "HARMONY" by exchanging "ways" of "imaginating" ??Not sure how to take your comment, Pist; usually members' first posts are consistent with their names. Are you being facetious, or are you pist at something else?
hehehe
'like it !
[/center]
Regardless of what DL wanted, the harmony here depends on a realization that the other guy's theory is just as valid as your own, even if it is the exact opposite. Otherwise, the board can be pretty disharmonious at times.
As for the topic of this thread: I feel that 3 weeks is the time that passed since the Lamp Lady made the apartment switch official. Originally, Lamp Lady was rooming with Camilla in #17, and Dianne moved into #12 to be close to Camilla. Gradually, more and more often, Dianne slept over, forcing Lamp Lady to sleep in #12. Camilla never wanted that kind of thing with Dianne; so, immediately after the switch, she moved in with Adam. (The engagement to Adam was probably a sham excuse to spare Dianne from knowing the real reason for Camilla's departure---i.e., she didn't like Dianne that much.) That sent Dianne into a deep depression, so she quit unpacking, answering the door, bathing, etc.; hired a hitman, and had the dream twice. All that took place in three weeks. Makes sense to me; but your theory is just as good if it works for you.
Dec 10, 2005 9:26 PM
0 0
I'd like to argue otherwise.
The question has been asked on the forum of why Lynch puts her in the same clothes in both the dream, and the scene immediately following the dream. Illustrated by these pics:
Okay, we know that the buttons on her shirt are on the right in the 'reality' scene (men's style) and on the left in the 'dream' scene (women's style). It's been suggested that this may represent an AC/DC sexuality of the Lamp Lady. But we know that Lynch is multi-threaded. We also know that Diane is taking elements of reality and skewing them in her dream.
So why does Lynch put her in the same clothes?
Answer: Because the scene with the Lamp Lady collecting her lamp and dishes etc. happened before the dream, and was an influence for the casting and costume of the Lamp Lady in Diane's dream.
To me this is the most logical straightforward answer.
The Lamp Lady's clothes are a clue to us that the scene is a flashback.
What are the consequences of this idea? Well, it throws the whole "3 week" timeline out of the window and renders it pretty much redundant. It makes the detectives comment meaningless. It basically reveals the whole Lamp Lady character as a red herring. i.e. Intended to throw us off the scent of a solution to MD, or maybe even lead us to a false one.
Perhaps interpreting the scene this way leads us (once again) down the path of considering the fact that the "detectives" looking for Diane are not searching for her in connection to the murder of a popular actress. Think about it. The very fact that they are looking for Diane for at least a second time (and the murder has been assumed to have been committed recently) leaves a strong possibility that it's something else entirely. Exactly what they want her for, and whether they really are detectives is another question entirely ...
What supports believing this scene is 'reality'?
The knocking on the door that seemingly awakens Diane. We see her reacting to it. This seems pretty sound, but we know how tricksy Lynch can be. The whole sequence after Diane wakes up is full of strangely edited cuts, suggesting movement and passing of time. It's possible that the knocking sparks the flashback for Diane. She's wearing the same robe and bed clothes, but who doesn't wear the same robe from day to day? It's feasible that Lynch presents the scene in a way that invites us to infer that it's one straight timeline, but quite possibly it's not.
Additionally the knocking noise has been commented on in the past. If you listen, it sounds so close it's almost like a banging on her bedroom door. With all Lynch knows about sound design, would he have let something like that slip by unnoticed if it wasn't his intention, or could he have done on purpose?
The boxes are a mysterious concept too. They appear almost unmoved in the sequence of flashbacks after Diane awakes. If she's moving in or moving out she's taking her sweet time doing it, it seems. But maybe Diane's flashbacks are not filling in the periphary. This is the argument I read on the forum somewhere:
Think of a Vietnam veteran having flashbacks to his time out there. His flashbacks may not place him entirely back in the jungle. It's feasible that he's seeing VC soldiers around the corner of his hallway at home or wherever. On the couch sex scene, the focus is on the couch sex. The boxes are incidental and peripheral. We know that some of the details of the flashbacks are likely not trustworthy. Maybe the boxes are one of those details ...
Now the Lamp Lady's changing hair is a whole other matter for a rainy day. ;)
Food for thought ...