User talk:Moni3/Mulholland Drive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Geometry guy
Wow! I stumbled on this by chance. I wish you and Alan Shaw were the reliable sources, rather than the professional critics, who can't (it seems) even be bothered to get their facts right. Then we would be able to present an article which reaches to the heart of the movie, while leaving readers to form their own interpretation. It is remarkable that you manage to do this anyway, even with your hands tied by the lack of decent analysis in the reliable sources. Geometry guy 00:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Geometry guy. I need to edit this. I have been writing to it for a week or so, and today I was horrified to realize I hit "Save page" instead of "Show preview". I thought, no harm - no one will be able to see it unless I advertise it...Pppt. Well, your comment makes me feel a teeny bit less horrified. --Moni3 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, but it is already looking good. Anyway (I'm sure you know this), whenever you want to delete an article in your user space, simply replace the article by {{db-auth}}, or just ask. I could delete it if you wanted, but actually, I think what you are doing is really cool. I happened upon it because I randomly clicked your contribs link at the right moment. Maybe everyone should have a Mulholland Drive subpage. I'm tempted to create my own! Geometry guy 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to see you announced it instead! I'm still tempted to create my own such subpage, but given how busy I am right now and my poor literary skills, that isn't looking very likely right now! Kudos to you for making a page like this. Geometry guy 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I stuck it on my userpage. I don't know if that's announcing it. I signed up for David Lynch's paid website some weeks ago, and I thought of sending the link, but now I can't remember how to log on the damn thing... Let me know if you end up writing something. I'd be interested to read it. I saw Inland Empire last night. An interesting experience, but not the same connection to the characters I had with Mulholland Dr. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to see you announced it instead! I'm still tempted to create my own such subpage, but given how busy I am right now and my poor literary skills, that isn't looking very likely right now! Kudos to you for making a page like this. Geometry guy 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, but it is already looking good. Anyway (I'm sure you know this), whenever you want to delete an article in your user space, simply replace the article by {{db-auth}}, or just ask. I could delete it if you wanted, but actually, I think what you are doing is really cool. I happened upon it because I randomly clicked your contribs link at the right moment. Maybe everyone should have a Mulholland Drive subpage. I'm tempted to create my own! Geometry guy 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BBrucker2
I just saw the movie this weekend, and while I've only seen it once, most off the film seems to be burned into my memory, and I can't stop thinking about it.BBrucker2 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're not kidding! I still think about it constantly. I've finally stopped watching it every day, but I still feel like I should. --Moni3 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Last night, I just gave your essay a quick scan, but this morning I had a chance to read the whole thing slowly and thoroughly. I like the fact that you don't subscribe to the dream theory, as it's the theory that seems so clearly right to me, and it provokes further thought to read a coherent explanation of an alternative. It's definitely more optimistic than my own view of the Dotty/Rita portion being an elaborate fantasy sprung from the guilt-ridden brain of the sleeping Diane. Still, I wonder how much of your view is formed by your personal experience of dreaming. As you yourself admit, "I never forget who I am in my dreams; my identity is never lost or confused." For me, virtually the exact opposite is true. I often have dreams in which I am someone else, in which I am merely a spectator of what unfolds, or in which I seem to be myself but upon waking realize that I was acting in a manner completely contrary to my waking character. Still, I like the fact that you choose to see Betty as so real. So many people (myself included) seem to insist on characters in our movies which are dark and deeply morally ambiguous. Betty is not exactly a paragon of virtue, but is definitely sweet and optimistic; why shouldn't a person like that be real? And paired with Rita who, whatever her shady past may have been, has fresh innocence imposed upon her by fate, it makes for a very touching (if confusing) love story. Anyway, your essay has made me realize that in obsessing over the "correct" interpretation of the film, I'm potentially missing the opportunity to let the film mean whatever just feels right to me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. BBrucker2 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I just had to read it again. I hope I made it clear the only way to interpret the film is by personal experience, not only of dreaming, but how one approaches the characters and their situations. When I began reading every single thing I could about the film, I had to start with the dream analysis because it was all over print and the internet. Some of it is pretty wacky, just grasping for any kind of meaning, and those ideas were easy to reject. But the overall themes that Betty and Rita never existed and what was true was Diane's horribly depressing life, really were painful to read and absorb. It's hard not to accept that kind of interpretation after reading it over and over. And in a way, that was also my kind of horrible being behind the restaurant.
- Last night, I just gave your essay a quick scan, but this morning I had a chance to read the whole thing slowly and thoroughly. I like the fact that you don't subscribe to the dream theory, as it's the theory that seems so clearly right to me, and it provokes further thought to read a coherent explanation of an alternative. It's definitely more optimistic than my own view of the Dotty/Rita portion being an elaborate fantasy sprung from the guilt-ridden brain of the sleeping Diane. Still, I wonder how much of your view is formed by your personal experience of dreaming. As you yourself admit, "I never forget who I am in my dreams; my identity is never lost or confused." For me, virtually the exact opposite is true. I often have dreams in which I am someone else, in which I am merely a spectator of what unfolds, or in which I seem to be myself but upon waking realize that I was acting in a manner completely contrary to my waking character. Still, I like the fact that you choose to see Betty as so real. So many people (myself included) seem to insist on characters in our movies which are dark and deeply morally ambiguous. Betty is not exactly a paragon of virtue, but is definitely sweet and optimistic; why shouldn't a person like that be real? And paired with Rita who, whatever her shady past may have been, has fresh innocence imposed upon her by fate, it makes for a very touching (if confusing) love story. Anyway, your essay has made me realize that in obsessing over the "correct" interpretation of the film, I'm potentially missing the opportunity to let the film mean whatever just feels right to me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. BBrucker2 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm quite glad that you read the essay and it made you think. I very much appreciate your stopping by to discuss it. Do you mind telling me how you found it? And did you read the article on the mainspace? If so, what did you think of it? I have to admit that that article is so neutral it's almost painful, although I do hope it appears to be thorough. --Moni3 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- How I found it? If I recall correctly, I was reading the main article and I remembered that the day I was watching the movie with my sister, we were talking about actors that seem to have a chameleon-like tendency to transform themselves into the roles they play so you hardly remember that the actor is there behind the character. Naomi Watts in particular was one I mentioned. After reading the article, I clicked on one of the pictures to see if there might be a gallery of pictures of Naomi Watts on Wikipedia (while I figure I could probably find one on the Internet in general, it might not be one I ought to be perusing) and found that the pictures from the article were used on this page.
- I'm quite glad that you read the essay and it made you think. I very much appreciate your stopping by to discuss it. Do you mind telling me how you found it? And did you read the article on the mainspace? If so, what did you think of it? I have to admit that that article is so neutral it's almost painful, although I do hope it appears to be thorough. --Moni3 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh, I forgot the articles are listed at the bottom of image pages. Well, I'm glad you found it at any rate. I saw King Kong a couple weeks ago when it was playing on TV. I didn't - I couldn't recognize Watts, no matter how hard I tried. She's quite talented. I have 21 Grams sitting at home, waiting for me. The article for the Mulholland Dr. is nominated for GA, and when it gets done with that and goes through some more copy-editing, I want to take it to FA. Feel free to make suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
