Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Mulholland Drive (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mulholland Drive (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Improving article?

I just saw this film a week ago, and have been absolutely consumed with it since. I've watched it every day since the day I saw it for the first time. I have access to an immense depository of research sources, and may be able to get this article improved to the point of feature in time, but I have to admit that I'm afraid of learning more about it. Absolutely petrified, like burned guy in the back of the restaurant terrified, for some reason. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means go for it (and just be glad you don't have to deal with that scene in Lost Highway where the "Mystery Man" first comes into the film and places a call to himself - that was truly terrifying, though the dude behind the restaurant is up there too) and I can probably try to help a little bit. I think the biggest thing to work on would be to discuss various interpretations of the film. There seems to be a lot of that out there, and a lengthy section along those lines would probably be especially interesting to readers (what we have now is inadequate). It might also be useful to discuss secondary sources that compare the film to Lynch's earlier work if that is available. It's definitely possible to have a very extensive article on this film, much more so than for most films.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the part that I'm most afraid of. I'm surprised to find how much I like Betty and Rita, and found the last 1/4 of the film painful and disturbing. I'm sure David Lynch is thrilled about that... However, I also think that Lynch made it so ambiguous that my interpretation of events (all scenes after the blue box are opened represent what Betty imagines would have to happen to her to put her in the bed as the corpse) are as valid as anyone else's. I really don't want to find out that I'm horribly wrong and the reality was Diane's depressing life and Camille as a half-evil heartbreaking tease. I really like Rita. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The most common interpretation definitely seems to be the one you don't care for, i.e. basically the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the film is essentially a dream - scripted as a classic Hollywood romance - while the nasty stuff at the end is what actually happened (though presented in a non-linear fashion). However this film has spawned a multitude of interpretations (see this web site and particularly this page for example). Lynch himself is generally not one to force a certain viewpoint on the audience, though I can see how you might be reluctant to put a lot of time into researching alternative views when you prefer a certain viewpoint. Regardless of how one ultimately views it though, I think Betty and Rita's story in the first two-thirds of the film is one of the more compelling on-screen romances in quite some time. From my point of view, even if it is a dream, it is no less compelling since the entire film itself is obviously a fiction. Anyhow, it's completely up to you but like I said I'll try to lend a hand if you do decide you want to work on this, though I'm a bit busy in the next few weeks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a little bit of reading. More like, running into a room and running out again. I know there are a multitude of theories about what is going on in the film, but honestly, my interpretation makes me feel so much better, which is as good as any reason to prefer it, I suppose. I concur with your opinion of the compelling romance. I am extraordinary critical of straight women enacting a man's fantasy and have seen a good share of simply awful, bile-inducing lesbian-themed movies. Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring did a sincere, artful job with their onscreen relationship for two apparently straight actors. Exhibit 1: they hooked me, I guess. I'll poke around and see what I can find. I have access to the library and online database at the University of Florida, so let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I just saw this film a week ago, and have been absolutely consumed with it since. - I'm the same every time I watch it. I must have seen it 20 or 30 times now, and every time I do, I discover something new, or some other theory to consider. I recommend you read some of the articles on the website lostonmulhollanddrive. I've begun to put some time aside to watch INLAND EMPIRE over again. It doesn't have the same impact as MD, but it's still a great film too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got a lot to read, this is true. I'm in the middle of quite a few articles right now, but thanks for the nod in that direction. I'll read those, too. Seems to be beyond my will to leave this alone. I'd be much happier and sleep better if I did. Edit to say: my biggest regret so far is reading a Maxim article about Laura Elena Harring. Maxim could make Eleanor Roosevelt sound like a blithering idiot. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Maxim is truly one of the more offensive publications out there (I think I found the article you refer to), particularly for anyone with inclinations that are even vaguely feminist (I'd always thought of it as nothing more than incredibly sexist and juvenile, but apparently they also once printed "a cartoon depicting Mahatma Gandhi being beaten, kicked and bloodied." Good one, dude!). Thankfully I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source for our purposes (and thankfully Eleanor Roosevelt passed on several decades before it started publishing, so no danger there). By the way the changes look good so far from a quick glance, though I'll read through the whole thing more closely in the next day or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted about Maxim. I'll be working on the article for a few weeks probably, and I do know my citations look like dog poop right now, so I'll be looking to fix those up and make them pretty as well. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional sources, academic criticism and the like

First off thanks to Moni3 for her good work on this so far - obviously I did some low-level copy editing that was hopefully largely constructive and added in a couple of new references.

Also to Moni, I assume you're gathering some of your sources from Pro-Quest? I just downloaded and saved a bunch of useful stuff (of a more academic nature) from various journals including Cinema Jounal, Film Quarterly, Journal of Film and Video, American Image, and Raritan (I have not reviewed any of these closely, but they all looked decent on the face). I'm assuming you've found, or will find, a lot of this stuff but if not send me an e-mail (it's enabled on my user page) and I can pass some of this along. I'd personally like to go pretty heavy on academic sources for the interpretation section and it seems like we could do that. I also downloaded an entire dissertation called "Visualizing Levinas" which deals with this film and two others and which may be useful.

One other thing I found, which is actually freely available online, is this article from The Guardian. It has short interpretations from six top film critics. It would probably be good to cull some stuff from there and turn it into a paragraph for the interpretation section. Perhaps then we could follow with some academic criticism which goes into a bit more depth and utilizes film theory, but of course I'm open to other suggestions.

I'll try to take a look at some of the smarty-arty film nerd material I nicked from ProQuest in the near future and work up some stuff for the article, and like I said I'm happy to pass that along if you don't get a hold of it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still poking around. I'd rather not have to get caught with my pants down with bad citations, so I'm cleaning up what I've done. I try to read 3-4 articles a day, add what I can, but the reading of the articles in Lynchian in itself. Once I've read an article, I realize there needs to be another dimension to this one. So I'm going to use a sandbox off my userpage to reconstruct some portions, specifically a "characters" section (and I hope to delete the list of the cast in exchange for well-written character descriptions). I've also found some articles on JSTOR, which I will certainly read. I would love to read what you're reading as well, so yes, I'll look on ProQuest. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of comments on new additions

Your great work continues Moni3 - you are vastly improving this article, and the Characters and Romantic content sections add a lot. A couple of minor questions though. In the Betty character section you say "For one critic, Betty performed the role of the film's consciousness, and unconscious." Is the first word supposed to be conscience rather than consciousness? If not I don't understand what the critic was getting at and the point should probably be fleshed out a bit. Actually even it it was supposed to be "the film's conscience, and unconscious" it is probably worth it to explain what the critic meant by that.

Second, I'm not sure that it makes much sense to include the two conflicting statements from Harring re: the love scene. I don't think it really advances the article, though it does make Harring look a bit silly. I think we have to consider that one of the sources was Maxim which is a fairly ridiculous publication (as we already discussed), and that Harring might have consciously changed her standard line to "I'm glad I had a boyfriend" given that she was doing an interview for a magazine largely read by single young men. Or she might just make stuff up and say whatever suits her for whatever reason. I don't know obviously, but that kind of jumped out as me as a sort of "Gotcha Laura Elena Harring!" moment even though I'm sure that was not your intention. If there is some way to better contextualize it - or if here conflicting statements were fodder for some commentator/critic - then it would make more sense to me to have those there.

Finally, the last sentence of the "Romantic content" section is a run-on and a complex one at that. There are two or three complex ideas at work there and I don't think it can all be said in one sentence. You might want to unpack that a little bit and break it into a couple of sentences (I would give it a shot but don't have the article handy, though I might get a hold of it). For one thing you might expand the discussion of the "classic theme in literature and film depicting lesbian relationships" - either via example of a more detailed elaboration - as I think a lot of casual readers will not pick up on what you are saying there.

Anyhow these are fairly minor quibbles, really nice work as I said.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey BTP, I very much appreciate the nudges to fix prose. I'll be copyediting this article over and over in the next few weeks, and there are many places in the articles I work on the make perfect sense to me, but not to others. I'm still reading and writing - I have a section on the style of Lynch's directing, as well as the soundtrack in the works in my sandbox. I'm going to be working on this article quite a bit this weekend - I'll be house sitting with dogs and not much else to do.
The Romantic content section I wrote...hmmm...logically because so much has been written about the lesbian scenes in this movie, but written quite...ickily. I made up a word. I also thought it had to be included because from the reading I've been doing, these interviews and descriptions are just, I, uh, they sting, and they're remarkably stupid in some instances (the numerous stories of making out in front of the camera and collapsing into giggles, for example). Here's a difficult thing. Most of the articles I work on improving I do to honor them, but in this instance, I'm working on this film to exorcise it (and honor it). I avoided this film for years because I thought it was Maxim's idea of hot lesbian love, so what is written about the actors and their roles is notable, as it goes to form a popular conception of lesbian identity. What I found so awful and violent in the film was my sincere desire for these women to work it out some way because I like them so much, and to find that wish quashed in a way that is quite cliche yet still valid, since there are just as many dysfunctional lesbian relationships as there are any others.
Perhaps my real fear in the back of the restaurant is that in reading volumes of information as I'm doing, will diminish the love I have for these characters and their story. What captivates me now soon won't. Maybe we all end up like Diane. God. --Moni3 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and if you feel like doing research on this will severely spoil your view of the film to an unacceptable degree then don't be afraid to just let it go! But obviously I'd be happy if you to decide to keep working on it!
In your reply you did not exactly respond directly to the question about the Harring quotes. I think a neutral reader coming in will find that passage a bit odd and more about Harring than about the film (in a way her thoughts on the love scene, which were quite personal, might make more sense at Laura Harring). I'm not sure how to handle it but I think we should either contextualize those somehow or possibly just remove them (if we had a secondary source referring to those conflicting statements that would ideal).
You also might have skipped over my first question which was the easiest. Was it supposed to be "conscience" or "consciousness" in the Betty character section?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oooookaaaayyy. I just read over what I wrote last night... No more posting after 1 am for me, especially after immersing myself in Lynchian analyses.
"And if blonde Betty is the film's governing consciousness (or, as we come to understand, its governing unconscious) then dark-haired Rita is its object of desire," is the full quote by Amy Taubin.
I'm going to look hard at the Romantic content section. It was my intention not to point out the actors' words, but the media insistence in these stories that 1. the lesbian content is hot, 2. the actors are certainly not lesbians, so let's all relax, 3. filming the romantic scenes is quite similar to Penthouse Letters, but 4. the actors are certainly not lesbians. Until I find a secondary resource that points out the ridiculousness of this, I'll remove some of the content. I don't mind the critique of what I'm adding - it makes a better article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, all the research is admirable, but I think the article reads more like a graduate thesis for film school or an obsessed fan's tribute to the film than it does an encyclopedia article, which is what it's supposed to be. MovieMadness (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So what do you think it should consist of? As of now, I have researched reviews and critiques, with a few short analyses. I admit I have little experience writing for a film here at Wikipedia, but I have written other FAs. I don't deny I am obsessed, clearly, but the article must suit the subject. David Lynch films do not parallel the straightforwardness of Superman or Star Wars. I would like to include what is required for films, but material must also be tailored to reflect what has been discussed in print. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, let me say you deserve an A for writing an excellent thesis on Mulholland Falls. However, since you admittedly don't have much experience writing Wikipedia film articles, may I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines? Quoting film analysis isn't common, and while I'm not saying it shouldn't be included at all, I think your admitted obsession with the film may have allowed you to go overboard in adding far too much of it. It's not that David Lynch films do not parallel the straightforwardness of Superman or Star Wars; it's a matter of keeping all articles, regardless of the subject matter, as encyclopedic as possible. MovieMadness (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting film analysis should be common, and I'm rather disheartened to learn that it isn't. This is a complex work of art that has been discussed in academic journals - indeed it is very much an "art house" film that deserves to be discussed as such. I do not see what is non-encyclopedic about this entry, other than that it is a work in progress. MM you seem to be predisposed against adding critical analysis from film scholars and I personally do not agree with that at all. When I get a chance I plan to add more than Moni has already added, and I am not at all "obsessed" with this film, nor does this have anything to do with my graduate school work. Complex cinema warrants complex discussion - that's very encyclopedic in my view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll read the style guidelines absolutely. Thank you for posting that. I'll keep your comments in mind while including material and deciding what needs to go and what should stay. As the article is still at B class, I think it's premature to determine what is inappropriate until it goes up for GA or Peer Review at WP:Films or general Peer Review. As I told BTP, however, any commentary on what is in the article is helpful in making it the most comprehensive, most well-written article it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Start class. Ok. Just as well. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace, I agree "complex cinema warrants complex discussion," but that constitutes POV, which definitely is not encyclopedic. There are places to hold such complex discussions, and Wikipedia is not one of them. I don't believe the fact you personally feel critical analysis from film scholars belongs in film articles gives you free reign to edit an article in a way that doesn't meet the guidelines of the project under which it falls or ignores the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. I appreciate the fact you and Moni3 are such fans of the film, but you need to separate discussion that belongs on a message board from the encyclopedic facts that belong in Wikipedia. Why not initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to determine whether or not there's a consensus among the project members that such additions are appropriate and, if so, to what extent they should be included? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
What might be at issue here is the concept of POV vs. NPOV. POV is when I write the article stating it's the best movie of all time, with the most talented actors, using superlatives that have no citations, or conversely, that it's awful and should be erased from human memory. As article writers, we can only filter what has already been written about the topic. NPOV means the editors provide a balanced look at what others have written about it. If I included only criticism of the film without any praise, that is POV. When I asked for assistance in research for films, I hope I did not imply that I have no idea how to write an article for Wikipedia. In fact, I write darn good ones, if I don't say so myself. In asking for assistance, I was hoping to get insight on what parts of an article should be included for a film vs other FAs I have written. If the editors who are directly involved in this article feel it is ready to go to peer review, and there we meet a consensus of other editors experienced in this project and knowledgeable about the subject who feel the article is too something, then it is time to address the style guidelines or perform massive copy edits. --Moni3 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the quality of your articles. You wanted insight, and I tried to provide some by suggesting you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for assistance. Isn't the time to address the style guidelines before you spend a great deal of time adding material that eventually may be deemed inappropriate? Believe me, I fully appreciate your passion for this film; I just think it's getting in the way of keeping the article about it as encyclopedic as possible. MovieMadness (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
MovieMadness your comments are quite out of bounds in my opinion. Neither Moni3 nor myself are inexperienced Wikipedians, yet you are speaking to us as though we were. I don't care for your tone, and I don't remotely appreciate your suggestion that I am merely a fan of this film and am somehow here to promote it, or that the material in this article belongs in a message board. Statements like that are not at all collegial. And I'm afraid you don't understand much about NPOV, even though you are a member of a WikiProject. You are suggesting that commentary from film scholars is POV and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. That is patently absurd. Our articles (and I've written some, Moni has written some featured ones, so neither of us are amateurs here) should be sourced with the best sources possible (would you argue that history articles should not be sourced with books by historians, all of which are POV?...I doubt it). Folks who write on/teach about film are the best possible sources for any film article and I'm completely shocked that you seem to be suggesting otherwise.
And downgrading this article to start class was a bit bush league in my view. Please explain, specifically, how this article is more like this version of the Beethoven movie article as opposed to this version of the Back to the Future article (the examples from the WikiProject film guidelines, which incidentally are not even tailored to films since you have the sentence "For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well..." in your start class guidelines, which suggests not much time was put in to crafting the guideline).
And please understand I don't give a fig how the article is rated right now - I'm just questioning your judgment and want you to explain your rationale. It can stay start for all I care, though how an article with an infobox, several images, 4000+ words, and 38 footnotes from very reliable sources is just a "start" eludes me. But then again how any Wikipedian could seriously suggest that scholarship on a topic does not belong in an article also eludes me. I know I'm being peevish here and I apologize for that, but this is all ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
In response, all I can say is you completely have misinterpreted my comments and the spirit in which they were made. I never suggested either you or Moni3 were inexperienced Wikipedians; she confessed to being inexperienced in writing film articles, and I was trying to address her concerns.
"Folks who write on/teach about film are the best possible sources for any film article" is accurate to an extent; I just don't believe everyone who has written commentary is worthy of being quoted. I was suggesting prudence be exercised when culling comments from various analytical discussions about the film, but perhaps I wasn't clear in expressing myself.
Articles I thought were a "start" based on the amount of content that was included have been downgraded to "stub" by editors with more experience than I. When I asked why, it was explained to me that simply because an article includes an infobox, several images, 4000+ words, and 38 footnotes doesn't automatically elevate it to B status if it doesn't read well and doesn't follow the guidelines of the project under which it falls. As present, the article doesn't flow smoothly at all. As someone who is not familiar with the subject, I find it to be confusing. Isn't an encylopedia supposed to instruct rather than leave the user bewildered?
I didn't create the film project guidelines. I suugested you start a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines if you disagree with them or would like to suggest changes.
How can you say "this is all ridiculous as far as I'm concerned"? Isn't the purpose of the discussion page to present an opinion, make suggestions, raise questions, and otherwise engage in polite, intelligent discussion without dismissing a POV other than your own the way you did?
I feel the only thing "out of bounds" here is the manner in which you attacked me. This perhaps is my perception rather than your intent, but I don't think I was the least bit harsh in my previous comments. In fact, I think I was quite respectful. I'm sorry you felt otherwise. MovieMadness (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, which may not be much since we seem to have a clear difference of opinion about what constitutes a good article,
  • The only reason for an article not to read like a thesis overview is that it may be pretentious and deliberately obtuse. I don't think the article reads that way so far, which is no mean feat since much of what has been written about the film uses Freudian analysis and other heady stuff.
  • Keeping information from reliable sources out of an article because it may be too much information is a disservice to the reader, as would be keeping the prose in its simplest form. In my opinion, the best articles I have read here at Wikipedia are inspirational in urging the reader to learn more about the subject. Not exhaustive, but comprehensive. Following guidelines because they are there is not a good reason to keep commentary out of the article. After all, guidelines are only guidelines.
  • It is not WP:Films guidelines I am considering in editing this article, although they are helpful; it is FA criteria.
  • I think setting a new standard for the quality of future articles is not a bad goal. This would be the perfect article to do it, as Lynch redefined filmmaking.
  • I've already stated my position. I'm going to continue to add relevant material to the article, source it well, copy edit for clarity, and take the suggestions of editors who are familiar with the content and potential of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well thanks MovieMadness for clarifying, it does help me understand your view, but when you lecture other editors about POV and basically implicitly accuse them of having a bias on the article because they like the subject that will rarely go over well. I accept that you did not mean to come off as lecturing but that's how it sounded, which is why I responded harshly. I appreciate your clarification regarding film scholars and now see that you think it's fine to add that kind of material which I obviously agree with, and of course one should not cite anyone and everyone. You did not really explain why you think this is a start class (general reference to the project guidelines does not do it, nor does an invocation of other - nameless - articles you have worked on before). You think the article is confusing and that's basically your rationale. I don't think it is at all confusing (and I only wrote a few small portions). If you can explain specifically, per guidelines, why this article is a start class that would be appreciated, however I'm not going to make a big thing about this. I just want to understand the basis for your rationale other than "I find it confusing." Even explaining why and where it is confusing would be useful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

Here are some resources that I thought you may find useful:

  • Ridgway, Frank (Oct 2006). "'You came back!'; or, Mullhollan Treib". Post Script 26 (1): 43-61. “Analytical critique of the structure of MULLHOLLAND DR. and in particular the role played by dreams in better understanding the ending.”  GOT IT
  • Vass, Michael (Oct 2005). "Cinematic meaning in the work of David Lynch". CineAction! (67): 12-13. “In a whole issue devoted to films on film, this article focuses on cinematic imagery in TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME, LOST HIGHWAY and MULHOLLAND DRIVE.”  GOT IT
  • Perlmutter, Ruth (Apr 2005). "Memories, dreams, screens". Quarterly Review of Film and Video 22 (2): 125-134. “The author analyses a number of films which make use of dreams and memories to express the tension between remembering and repressing an unacceptable past.”  Trying to find it
  • Hudson, Jennifer A (Apr 2004). "'No hay banda, and yet we hear a band': David Lynch's reversal of coherence in Mulholland Drive". Journal of Film and Video 56 (1): 17-24. “Suggests that critical readings of MULHOLLAND DRIVE which attempt to make logical sense of the film have ignored Lynch's interest in the unexplained.”  GOT IT
  • Andrews, David (Apr 2004). "An oneiric fugue: the various logics of Mulholland Drive". Journal of Film and Video 56 (1): 25-40. “Critical reading of MULHOLLAND DRIVE attempting to find logic in the narrative by interpreting the whole film as taking place inside Diane's head.”  Trying to find it
  • Andersen, Thom (Oct 2004). "Los Angeles continues playing itself". Cinema Scope (20): 48-51. “Thom Andersen writes about films set in Los Angeles made since LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF was released, particularly MULHOLLAND DRIVE and COLLATERAL.”  Trying to find it
  • McGowan, Todd (Jan 2004). "Lost on Mulholland Drive: navigating David Lynch's panegyric to Hollywood". Cinema Journal 43 (2): 131-147. “Discusses the idea of a filmic divide between the experience of desire and the experience of fantasy in David Lynch's MULHOLLAND DRIVE.”  GOT IT
  • Divine, Christian (Nov 2001). "David Lynch". Creative Screenwriting 8 (6): 8-12. “Interview with director David Lynch who talks about his way of writing and making films, referring particularly to MULHOLLAND DRIVE.”  GOT IT
  • Macaulay, Scott (Oct 2001). "The dream factory". Filmmaker 10 (1): 64-67. “Interview with director David Lynch who discusses his latest film, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and particularly the difficulties of changing the storyline to fit a feature film closed ending, rather than the TV pilot open ending it was originally.”  GOT IT

I may be able to find some references, as I was not sure how much Moni3 could find on her own. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. Very much. I've found what I marked, and a few more. I'm trying to read through them to understand each article's point, but a few take a good, slow reading - or three. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't blame you. I'm trying to do critical analysis for Fight Club, as you can see here. The going's been rather slow, as you can tell. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoa. Fight Club. Good luck with that. And thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe how good this article is now! It's been totally transformed in a few days. Nice work, Moni3. Lugnuts (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in looking at Pulp Fiction (film), which I think is a very good approach by DCGeist for that film in terms of critical analysis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Why is that still at B class?
I have been considering the organization and arrangement of the information in the article. I like how the article ends, writing-wise, with the quote by Harring, or just some quote that sums it all up, but I think Interpretation should come before the Characters section, or else it just doesn't make sense (although making sense almost belies the point). I'm also considering integrating Interpretations and Characters, or just some kind of reorganization there. I'm also thinking of integrating the Romantic content into Characters and Reception. I'm not sure yet. I'm reading it over and over just to think here... --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think DCGeist has pursued any kind of assessment yet. It's definitely GA at the very least. As for restructuring the article, I think you're free to try out different approaches. I would say that Plot usually comes first, Production is usually in the middle, and Reception is toward the end. Maybe the interpretative content can go toward the end, since it's more retrospective? It would work if you want some kind of chronological order to it. Of course, it can be argued that the interpretative content is the most important and should go higher. Lots of ways to go about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone should suggest he get that assessed, unless he just doesn't care. If that's the case, I envy him... Would it be terribly bad form of me to steal his awards tables?
Since the characters in this film are so integral to its mystery, I really hope I can get away with having such a substantial Characters section. I don't think it would do to shorten it and transfer the information to other sections... I'm still trying to think of how to arrange the rest. So far I'm ok with the Plot, Production History, Style (although I need to work on this section more), and Interpretations - although I'm still not sure of where it should be placed. --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How does one cite the insert card for the 2004 DVD? --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can look at Template:Cite video and see about revising an attribute to mention an insert card instead? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to Watermark (No. 56) and LesbiaNation (No. 62) for complete citations to the articles I used. The links that are there now are from fan sites and they won't endure FAC scrutiny, I predict. I hope I'll be able to get them or I'll have to remove the content, and I don't want to do that. However, I can't find contact information for Movieline or Guerrilla Filmmaker. Do you have any experience with these publications? How can I get the citations? --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fan sites may be challenged. I haven't been too critical of the article since I know you're in a period of expansion. I think that there is a lot of sufficient references used, so fan sites may not be on top of the list in terms of authority about the film. As for Movieline (since I think you took care of Guerrilla Filmmaker already), I don't know how to access that. Just saw that in the index about this particular film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

May I encourage the implementation of non-free images whose fair use rationales would be explicitly backed by the article's content, particularly from third-party, published sources? In my experience, it is subjective to argue for a particular screen shot to be included in the Plot section. There are many that could be taken from the film, even more so with this very interpretative piece of cinema. I would recommend removing the existing images from the Plot section and reviewing the article's content to see if any particular passage would be significantly strengthened by using a screen shot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to add all the sections I plan to - a couple more characters and a section on Lynch's filmmaking style - before trying (desperately) to simplify what is in the plot section. Much of what is in the plot section is now in Characters and what I'm writing for Style, so it's a bit redundant. I hope to shorten it considerably, and shift the Diane/Camilla shot to characters. If I can stuff content, I am woefully inept in images - I cannot possibly try to teach myself how to capture screenshots without hurting myself or my physical possessions. If there are more images to be added, I need assistance from someone who knows how to do that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to what you can do. I've usually preferred the approach of worrying about images after the content is laid out; that way, any added images will be pretty justified. It would probably be easy to find a website like this that has screen caps of Mulholland Drive, but nothing came up quickly on Google. There is a way to take a screen capture from the DVD (I've heard PowerDVD does this best). It would probably be a good idea to find an editor who has both that software and the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me consider what would enhance the article visually when I'm finished with the primary content. I'll come to you to ask you questions about licensing the images since that's another aspect of film articles I'm unfamiliar with. Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw a screenshot somewhere of Mr. Roque in his large wheelchair, which I think would add to the Style section. Any tips on how to get that and license it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this helpful at all? It's not the greatest quality; obviously, a screen cap would be better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The image of Mr. Roque is a great start, though I think we should try to pursue a screen cap of higher quality down the road. We should phase out the other two non-free images if we can't come up with specific fair use rationales for them. Are there any scenes or shots that could be visually illustrated in the article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the images have to be right next to, or in the same section as what describes them? The first image of Betty arriving in LA is a good one to display the lighting contrast between Betty and Diane. I can change the caption in the shot of Diane and Camilla "exchanging words" to reflect the different cinematic treatment (but the mention of lighting is done in the Style section, not the Characters section). A shot of Betty auditioning up close with Woody Katz would fit, and a shot either of Betty and Rita or Rebekah del Rio in Club Silencio would be great. --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That's usually been the trend, but it's not necessary. I would say that if the image is outside of the relevant section, then the explanatory caption should have a reference tag. Also, if you are going to define rationales for the images, make sure you go to their image pages and make it explicit there. You can see what I did for the Mr. Roque image to salvage it, though you are welcome to tweak it. (#1 and #8 are usually the ones to specify, though I experience redundancy in writing out either of them.) As for the images you have in mind, we will have to find someone who has the DVD and the software. I'd be happy to do it, but I don't have the film. I have to admit, though, the details this article provides makes me want to see it again, since I saw it during a time that I wasn't "cinematically enlightened". :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style

This section, which focuses primarily on cinema style and technique is the one I'm most unsure of due to my lack of experience in film articles. If anyone has any suggestions about how to improve it, strengthen it, add to it, or wrap up and perceived loose ends, please let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I am unable to locate full proper citations for the Joe Morganstern review in the Wall Street Journal and the Desson Thomson review in the Washington Post. I can find Desson Thomson as a writer, but he's written thousands of reviews, and nothing appears under "Mulholland Dr". I can't even find a hit for Joe Morganstern in the WSJ. For this reason, among others, Metacritic will not suffice as a reliable source, unfortunately. I'll continue to search for them, but if I can't locate them, they will have to be removed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the Wash Post - will continue to search for WSJ. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can verify the existence of the Thomson review on Newsbank and the existence of the Morgenstern review on ProQuest:
  • Morgenstern, Joe. "Review / Film", Wall Street Journal, 2001-10-12.  (also reviews Bandits, Iron Monkey, My First Mister, and Va Savior, so it's a compilation of reviews)
The citation is covered for the Washington Post. Do you need any details about either review? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked on ProQuest. Gah. Ok, thanks for the full citation. Will amend. --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Can you provide a page number for WSJ? --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh, haha... for some reason, I can't seem to find it again. :) Must be a tricky keyword deal. I'll have to try again later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found it -- I searched for "Morgenstern" on that specific date. Here's the whole bit: Review / Film -- In `Bandits,' Billy Bob And Bruce Steal Scenes, But Get Cuffed by Script --- Screwball Caper Is Just Too Smart For Its Own Good; `Iron Monkey' Is Exquisite Martial-Arts Tale / By Joe Morgenstern. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Oct 12, 2001. pg. W.1 —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of citations, I would suggest re-formatting Citations and Bibliography to be something like at User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft#References. This was implemented by Bzuk, who is very familiar with referencing. I've left a note asking him to explain this kind of setup. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I could evoke whining effectively through type, it would be here, about citations. It's all I can do to fuss over what I do. I like my citations! This style has worked so far for me in the articles I've done. Whine. Wah. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done some test edits to show you the style variations that are required. Generally, when I find more than one or two errors, I rewrite the entire article to a consistent style. Please consider my test edit in that context. For further elaboration on an MLA (Modern Language Association) style that is being used, I can make your eyes tear up. Don't ask me for a full explanation- LOL. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
You say start of an edit. Are there more? Since I don't know quite what you're doing, I don't know what you're doing... Should I take over from any particular place? --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Bzuk, I reverted the citations to the ones I had. I feel badly, because I know how much work goes into those, and I know it took you some time to show me what you mean. However, per my talk page I understand that they should just be consistent, and the style I was using wasn't incorrect. Although I can apparently read a whole bunch of stuff and edit the article accordingly, it borders on painful for me to learn an entire new style of citations. I really do appreciate your help. --Moni3 (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaargh, why would you revisit errors??? I can correct the entire article if you wish but it also pains me to see perfectly correct citations and references rewritten inaccurately because? it's too difficult to accept corrections? learn more? follow a consistent style? If that is your decision, than I have no alternative. Please remember that another editor asked me to look at the referencing and there are issues of WP:AGF and WP:Own to consider, although I can very readily accept that it is hard to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Again, my offer stands but if there is no interest in collaboration, then I move on... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
Though I don't delight in the "Aaaargh", please understand it's not mere laziness that evoked that response. If the citations I've been using in this and other articles are acceptable, it seems a matter of personal preference which citation formats should be used. I intend to go through the citations many times to make sure they're consistent, but I prefer the style I have been using, and I have been instructed by editors on the FAC to use these formats. So, I suppose you can make the argument that I am scared and lazy, but I prefer cautious and conservative. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As Maralia mentioned to me earlier, any style of referencing can predominate, but your referencing style is your own and does not follow any established style guide formats that I know. However, you are resolved, so have a good day. After the FA, you may be more receptive to change. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Article sequence

I respectfully would like to suggest the article be restructured, for reasons of clarity, into the following sequence:

  • Opening
  • Plot
  • Production History
  • Characters
  • Interpretations and allusions
    • A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood"
    • Romantic content
  • Style
  • Soundtrack
  • Critical reception
  • Awards and nominations (presently included under Release and reaction and commonly listed separately in film articles; the section could be expanded by including some of the more notable awards and nominations cited at [1])
  • DVD release (removing the oddly-placed separate box and incorporating the info in it into this section)

Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with that, except for switching Characters and Interpretations. Without understanding most people think Betty is Diane's dream, the characters don't make sense yet. I'm working on an awards table. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems pretty good to me, though probably the interpretations should come first for the reason Moni mentions (also I wonder if the critical reception section should not be a bit earlier, perhas just before the soundtrack section). When I get a chance I want to look through some stuff I gathered which will probably result in some additions to the "Interpretations and allusions" section, perhaps in the form of a new sub-section or two. However this would not change the overall structure.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I also had a suggestion to move Production history to the end, as it would flow from deep to shallow, as if the reader is finally floating to the surface. I'm not sure about that since the information about the pilot is important to knowing some of the loose ends are there because they were supposed to be taken care of with a series. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In film articles, the Production section generally follows the Plot synopsis and Critical reception and Awards and nominations come at the end, imitating the chronological order in which a movie is made, released and received by critics, and honored.
While I understand how a director's vision influences the choice of songs used in a film, I do think Soundtrack should be a section of its own rather than a sub-head of Style, but that's a minor issue. MovieMadness (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs a separate and expanded Awards and nominations section. I'm willing to do this if there's no objection. MovieMadness (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Note my colorfully titled, yet applicable sandbox section. I'm in the middle of it. I know it needs to be done, so I'm workin' on it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Your work in progress is noted. As I suggested above, I hope you also plan to incorporate a separate DVD section and eliminate that box that's floating in the middle of nowhere, which reminds me of a sidebar in Entertainment Weekly. MovieMadness (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What box floating in the middle of nowhere? Maybe I'm not seeing what you are. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to the box floating in the middle of the section with the sub-head A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood" . . . MovieMadness (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think he's referring to the quote box that mentions the clues offered. I don't agree with eliminating the box, but I think that perhaps there could be a better relationship between the content of "A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood'" and the clues. I don't think that the clues would be appropriate for a DVD section. Speaking of the release of media, I just realized that there is not a single mention of the film's box office performance. I would suggest using information from here to show the scale of the theatrical run. Perhaps you could go so far to have a "Release" section that covers the theatrical run and home media (citing the DVD release and re-release), while you can have a "Reception" section with the awards and critical reaction. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I vote for three separate sections - Release, Critical reception, and Awards and nominations. MovieMadness (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Is box office mojo a reliable source? Apparently I can't use IMDb for awards. They're so finicky at FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I use Box Office Mojo as a resource for my film articles and no one has objected so far. MovieMadness (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo is a staple link for most film articles, and it's pretty objective data for contemporary films. It may be more difficult to cite with older films since tracking box office performance is a fairly recent phenomenon in cinema, but for Mulholland Drive, it should be appropriate to reflect its performance in the United State and Canada ("domestic", but don't use that word), other territories, as well as the number of theaters. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the WP:Films guidelines, looking for suggestions on what to include in a DVD release section, but there's nothing there. So - other than stating when the DVD was released, what other information should be included in such a section? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that relevant information would include the insert, the gross of DVD sales or rentals (possibly not easy to find since this was back in 2001), and maybe any special features that you think would be informative to the reader. How about limiting the background explanation for the insert of clues and just focus on listing the clues in that respective section, then discuss how clues changed/disappeared after the first DVD release in the DVD-related section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can, try to access VideoScan to find out about DVD sales. I'm looking at an April 22, 2002 article from DVD News that mentions DVD sales ending in April 14, 2002, with Mulholland Drive being listed fifth (after Spy Game, Thirteen Ghosts, Serendipity, and Training Day.) That particular bit of information may not be too unique for an encyclopedia, so feel free to make that judgment call. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else to include in this section besides what I did here (bottom of page). It's such a short section. If there's not much more to add to it, must it be included at all? --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's no "must" about it. :) I wouldn't have a separate "DVD Release" section, though it could fit somewhere else. Maybe details of the theatrical release and the DVD release can go together somehow? By the way, are you planning to move the clues box? I was fine with where it was before, but just thought that it would be more relevant to the passage about the DVD release to talk about the logistics of the clues being provided. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, hmmm. I don't know about moving the quotebox with the clues. MovieMadness gave me the impression it looks bad where it is, but I didn't notice it. I don't take into account what appears on different browswers with different settings. Ok let me see what I can insert here...--Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what he said about that, either. I couldn't tell if he is seeing what we both see and that there is an issue with it, or if it does not display for him as it does for us. By the way, from my brief look at sources for the DVD, I thought it was released on April 9, 2002? It says June, which seems to be a big difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is discouraged to have just one subsection in a section (referring to the Casting subsection under the Production history section), so I'd like to suggest possibly having the first two paragraphs be under "Development" and the passages related to filming under "Filming". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Okeydoke. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how about the "Filming" subsection? It's pretty clear where that starts. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A'ight. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool. :) What do you feel that you have left to do with this article? Anything major, or just waiting on the peer review. (I'll try to weigh in there; I need to take some time and comb through the article to see if everything can make sense to someone new to the topic.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's getting to that point where I've read it so many times I can almost recite it. Interesting, yes, but I can't pick out mistakes anymore, or places that don't make sense. This is where peer review comes in. I got some good suggestions last night from an editor I've worked with before. I hope others join in to review it. If not, I'll have to shop for the roughest, meanest, sons o' bitches around to rip it to shreds and tell me where it sucks. Which will make me all mad and stuff, pout, then go fix it where it will be better, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

In the reviews section we currently have basically five reviews which are negative and maybe 2.5 which are positive. There's a bit of a problem with the WP:UNDUE aspect of NPOV here in my opinion. The film received more positive than negative reviews from critics (as we acknowledge in that section with the RT cite), yet we quote twice as many negative reviews. I would recommend rectifying that eventually though it's not a super pressing issue or anything. It makes more sense to me to trim the negative reviews and add one or two positive ones rather than adding a bunch of positive reviews. We don't want to make the section too long, and we obviously just want to give readers a taste of what reviewers said. I'm not sure what to cut exactly, though the McCarthy review in Variety is a bit of an outlier in that he feels the last part of the film has "no apparent meaning or logical connection to what came before." Many have viewed this film as far more coherent in terms of narrative than much of Lynch's other work.

Anyhow, I do think we need to balance that section. We really can't say that most reviews were positive and then include mostly negative reviews. Any thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I think the Rex Reed review should stay in. Perhaps comments from another. You want to do it or should I? --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
While I don't completely disagree with the concern about the presentation of the reviews, I would recommend consciously ensuring that your interest in the film isn't prevailing on a different level (as that concern has been expressed). There is a discrepancy between mentioning the high rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the negative reviews right after, so why not move RT up? In addition, would the article really be harmed if there was another paragraph of positive reviews to improve the balance? I don't think that it would be "too long" if we did just that, and it would move the reaction of the film toward the positive. My question is, are there any positive reviews that could provide insights that don't exist here? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur, a balance to be established in the number of reviews would be useful and then the overriding statement can be made wherein a positive assessment prevails. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
Okay, I'll work on this in the next couple of days (Moni3 has already put in plenty of work). I'll take Erik's suggestion and look into adding some more positive reviews (though if they are too repetitive, cutting down the negative ones might be the best option). And believe me I can stay objective on this. It's just a simple fact that reaction to the film from critics was very positive. For example see Metacritic where there are around thirty reviews that are largely positive versus four that are largely negative. Three of the four negative reviews listed there are in the article, whereas only a couple of the positive reviews are in the article (including one which is cited as a negative review). That's a serious NPOV problem, so I'll work to correct the balance. Really we should probably have a 4 or 5 (or more) to 1 positive to negative ratio, but I'll try to end up more in the 2 to 1 range which I think is more than fair. Just give me a couple of days and then we can see what people think of whatever I come up with, though of course anyone else who feels the urge is welcome to work on this as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind assisting with the positive reviews. I had to remove a statement that claimed this was Lynch's "masterpiece" along with Blue Velvet because it didn't match what was in the article. If we can find strong claims like that, it add much to the article, especially in light of the lead claim that it got wide critical acclaim. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the Variety review is concerned, I think Todd McCarthy is an ideal critic to quote, since he expresses mixed feelings about the film, something I suspect many viewers have as well.
As far as trimming the section, let's not forget this article does fall within the film project and as such some of the guidelines proposed by the project should be followed. A well-written film article includes several reviews, as balanced as possible. When I included what were at the time a few badly needed negative comments, since only Rex Reed's had been quoted, I also added the surprisingly overlooked positive review by Stephen Holden of the New York Times to try to achieve that balance. I have found more positive reviews to quote. But I don't agree the article needs more positive than negative reviews quoted to prove the film was well-received. Mention of the RT rating supports that fact. I think failing to include more than one negative comment is a disservice to the reader. MovieMadness (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added two more glowing reviews. I would suggest removing the Premiere comment, which is more negative than positive and therefore seems out of place in its present position. Since I didn't include it in the first place, I didn't want to delete it. MovieMadness (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, MM. The quote from Premiere has been removed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, the section includes one mixed, four negative, and five very positive reviews. I hope others agree this is a good balance. MovieMadness (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with having "Recognition" and "Criticism" subsections, which separates the "good" and the "bad" reviews in a POV approach. I really think that an attempt should be made to integrate all reviews under a common "Critical reaction" sort of section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm anticipating a request to cut up this section since it's long. Any suggestions on headings for it other than what's there? --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I would try to see if you can't have one section cover all the conventional reviews. If this is not possible, then perhaps the content could be split based on the substance, like a section on the characters and a section on the style. Just a thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll remove the subheadings, but I don't think it makes them POV. If it becomes an issue in either of the PR's, I guess we'll try to figure out what they should be. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant that it is more POV in the sense of structuring -- see WP:NPOV#Article structure: "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Examples that may warrant attention include: 'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself." It's probably as not much of a concern here as it would be for an article about a major event in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but I think it's one we can avoid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope this section won't be cut, since it's not too long by film article standards. I personally would argue against any requests for you to do so. I'm glad to see you removed the subheadings per Erik's suggestion, since these aren't common in film articles. MovieMadness (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Keep in mind most of the first paragraph of this section should be removed once you've added the separate Awards and nominations section, so that will shorten it a bit. MovieMadness (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we might be able to keep the paragraph, since it lists only what the article won from the most prestigious awards. I can shorten it perhaps. I'll be sensitive to the redundancy, but a few mentions should be kept in prose. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not so much the redundancy as the fact awards and nominations generally are kept separate from critical reception in film articles. MovieMadness (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work by MM to add those positive reviews, those were good choices. I removed the quote from the WSJ review for a couple of reasons. For one thing the initial review was only about 5 sentences long, whereas all of the other reviews cited (excepting somewhat the New York review) were full length reviews. Also I still think the issue of undue weight applies here. In order to hold to NPOV, articles on films which were widely acclaimed should not only state that fact but also include more positive than negative reviews (arguably significantly more). I think five positive reviews to three negative ones (with one fence sitter) is still a bit unbalanced but I'm fine with it. It's objectively true that the film received roughly 6 or 7 times more notable positive reviews than negative ones and our quotation of reviews should vaguely reflect that. If we were talking about Lost Highway it would be a different story.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I forgot to mention to Moni that I linked to the Hoberman Voice review and the review in the NYT, both of which are freely available online. I didn't mess with your citations other than to add the link to the article title. If there are other articles which might be freely available online but are not linked I can run through and check for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I had to revert the NYT ref because it required a login. The NYT does that magically without any apparent reason. I've had to go back on a couple of my articles and turn online NYT citations to paper ones. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well isn't it still better to have the link too? The citation is the same, it's just that folks who have a NYT login (which is free) or are willing to take 30 seconds to create one can view the actual article. It seems to me we would want the full paper cite and the link to the web version. I guess I've never really thought about it before, but there are so many free news services which require a login and it seems a shame not to link to them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:DEADREF: "If the link was merely a 'convenience link' to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, remove the link but keep the citation." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, but New York Times article links (as of the last year or so) basically never go dead, which is why I think it's good to link to them. All you have to do is create a login to view many of their articles, but that is the case for the Washington Post, the LA Times, and really just about every major newspaper in the U.S. that I'm aware of (I have logins at dozens of papers and create them without even thinking about it when I want to read a certain story). It's not an issue of dealing with dead references, it's that some people will not have a free account with the NYT when they click on the link. But many others will so the link will be useful to them, and those that don't have an account can easily create one (in about a minute). I see links to NY Times and WaPo articles all over Wikipedia so I don't know why it would be any different here. It does not make sense to not link to a page that is essentially permanently stable just because some folks won't take the trouble to register with the newspaper in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Lately, citations are the first thing checked in FACs. If there are any linked citations that require logins, they'll tell the nominator to change them. It's maddening, because there's no way really to learn how to do it all before you nominate something. I never feel like I know what I'm doing with citations because rules change constantly, and different editors have different preferences. Watching two editors argue about what format is correct during the FAC isn't uncommon. The citation format I'm using now may be completely different in 6 months. I dread the day I have to change citations in the articles I nominated where they number 117 or 122. Today, at least, login sites aren't allowed... --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you would obviously know and thanks for passing that on, but I must say that is completely insane. I would imagine it would be quite simple to put a note in the ref that says "login required" after the link if that is so important - then folks would know what to expect. By including a link you at least make it easy for some readers to check the original source, whereas by not including it it's not easy for anyone to look at the original source. I don't what the rationale for that is but would love to know. Anyhow obviously we should play by the rules so I'll make sure not to link to anything that requires a login.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

I saw the changes made my Jv821, and the Characters section I think should be reverted for aesthetic purposes alone. I think the bolded names are enough to mark the characters. Plus, it looks like the bullet points don't allow text wrapping around the image (that is now placed up near Betty for some reason?), which looks very bad on my browser. I think maybe Jv821 joined the paragraphs to keep the margins consistent with the bullets, but Betty and Rita sections are too long without a break in them. I know someone is going to request that they be separated somehow. So, I don't want to revert everything you did in this section, Jv821, but please take this into consideration. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about adding ---- between passages about each character? It provides a degree of separation without resorting to bullets or subsectioning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, why not? I checked the MOS for commentary about when and when NOT to use horizontal lines, but there doesn't seem to be anything there about them. So, I put them in. They may come out by request, but from here on out, anything may change per the request of a reviewer. Thanks for the suggestion, Erik. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. If you are still seeking more alternatives, another kind of approach can be seen at No Country for Old Men (film)#Cast and characters. It provides another way of improving readability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Hi, Geometry Guy. I cut the plot down considerably, only including what was essential to understand the story without leading to any interpretation. You've added some details to it, that while may be accurate, may not be essential. I was going for simplicity. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, and removed some stuff as well as adding some stuff. Everyone agrees that the dinner is the big scene in the film, and tha nametags of Betty and Diane are rather crucial facts on which most interpretations are based. My own view is that the plot section could be longer: for instance it doesn't mention the scene with the hitman, the prostitute and the pimp which conveys a lot of information. However, I completely see where you are coming from, in that Wikipedia discourages long plot sections, and we must avoid original research (I tried to remove some statements which might be challenged). Which details do you think need cutting after my edit? Geometry guy 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:FilmPlot says, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." You could take a little more liberty with it, perhaps. Also, maybe you could break it up into parts like at Pulp Fiction (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The emcee at Club Silencio isn't a magician. The song is described in detail in the Soundtrack section, and not really integral to the plot, although the announcement that everything there is an illusion is important. The reapparance of The Cowboy and Betty's aunt aren't integral to the plot (although to interpretation they are). I don't see Camilla as returning Adam's affections - interpreting it either way is interpretation. Camilla kissing Camilla is described in the Style section, and I think will only serve to confuse anyone who hasn't seen the film. (You have Adam and Melissa making an announcement.) The names of the waitresses, while to the interpretation of the Betty is Diane's dream is very important, is not so important to the plot as a whole, and only somewhat interesting to any other interpretation. The guy who collapsed at the counter I think is confusing without explaining why he is there, which can't be done without interpretation. Adding a disclaimer - sorry - I was on my way out the door when I wrote that. It sounds a bit terse. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points both, thanks. Apologies for the OR "Magician", but he isn't declared as an emcee either, so we need to find a standard way to describe him. I know from my own and others' experience that this is the first major scene which baffles first time viewers. After this, they either give up on the film or are fascinated. We have to say enough about this scene to reflect the transition.
There is a huge difficulty in the plot section in saying what is "integral to the plot". In this movie, "plot" and "interpretation of the plot" are extremely blurred. For instance, the fact that Diane is devastated at the dinner (by the attempted engagement announcement and the kiss between Melissa and Camilla) goes right to the heart of the plot, and it has to be mentioned, but mentioned without interpretation.
For another thing, is the plot section a plot description or a scene-by-scene description? In most movies, these are the same thing, but in this one, they aren't. At the moment, the plot section does not use a scene-based approach, and I respected that style in my edits (it does not anywhere say "In the next scene we see"). In a scene-by-scene description, the important scenes would be presented in the exact order of the film: the current presentation does not do this at all; indeed it would probably be unhelpful, both to someone who has seen the film and to someone who hasn't, to present the plot in exact scene order. One might think it is OR to describe the plot in a different order than the film, but there is also potential OR in presenting the plot in scene order: for example, the scene "where did the money come from" comes immediately after the scene which indicates where it came from, but that suggests an interpretation. It is a difficult balance. Geometry guy 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts: Plot sections for films like these are always tricky. Most plots are straightforward and do not need a scene-by-scene account. I'm not saying this should be a scene-by-scene account, but obviously a different approach needs to be taken with this type of film. In addition, resorting scenes would be OR if there is dispute about how they should be sorted. Some films have flashbacks in which it's clear that the protagonist is a kid where for the rest of the film he is an adult. The best approach is to basically describe what is seen on screen without worrying about interpretations. For interpretations, certain scenes can be elaborated for clarification in sections outside the Plot section. This is easier said than done, obviously. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and I think there is a good compromise in this article: the plot is basically described in scene order, but details, such as the interleaving of the Betty-Rita story with the other character scenes, are not done in scene order, even though these interleavings are crucial to many interpretations. Geometry guy 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more confusing to have a scene-by-scene description, and I tend to lean more toward a skeletal description in the name of simplicity - particularly for this story. Other portions of the article describe the characters and style in much better detail, where interpretations can be cited so they make more sense.

For the dinner party scene, if you wanted to add more detail to that to reflect its impact, I would be ok with saying, Diane watches Camilla and Adam prepare for an announcement, and cries when watching them embrace. It would be POV to say she's humiliated or angry at this point. There's so much to individual interpretation about this film, that it really has to be only the action that is seen. Case in point: Geometry guy saw Camilla returning Adam's affection; I see Camilla at most pretending to like Adam so she can use him to further her career, and at least, wanting to be with Diane, but recognizing she would get farther with Adam. The second part of the film is much trickier because Lynch throws all kinds of weirdness toward the end. It can't all make sense in a plot description. We can't lose readers by the first section for putting in too much detail that may be there for Lynchian effect.

Ok I'm gonna stop here because I went out and had some drinks, and I'm not sure I'm making a lot of sense...--Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are, and I agree with you to some extent: for instance I also see Camilla's return of affection (by which I simply meant glances, smiles, kisses, embraces) to Adam as superficial, and we need to summarize that in a way that makes no interpretation. However, I don't agree that she wants to be with Diane: the fact that she kisses the other woman (played by Melissa George) is a key moment in this scene. It shows that Diane has been replaced as her female lover (although, again, we can't give that interpretation, even though it is extremely important to the chain of events which are set in motion by the dinner party).
Actually, I find the second part of the film (post Diane waking up) much less tricky than the first part: it seems complicated on a first viewing, but it is quite easy to restore the narrative order and put together a coherent story. In contrast, the first part of the movie, which seems to be a straightly told (albeit bizarre) tale, is much harder to interpret because it is so heavily loaded with symbolism. Geometry guy 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. I saw Camilla kissing Camilla as a representation of Diane's fears that she's being rejected multiple times over, and not a reality. Anyone who social-climbs and clings to Adam for her career would not lean over and play tongue hockey with someone else in the middle of a dinner party and go completely unnoticed by everyone in the room (except for Diane). I do not view the last 1/3 of the film as a basis for the characters' realities at all. I didn't find the first part of the story very symbolic, really, more like what was confusing a mixture of Lynchian atmospheric weirdness and leftover ends from the pilot.
This is why I left the plot skeletal, relaying only what is necessary to understand the action. I can accept the changes made to the first portion of the plot, but below is what I think the second portion of the plot should read as:
Diane Selwyn (played by Naomi Watts) wakes up in her bed. She looks exactly like Betty, but she is portrayed as a lonely and depressed failed actress, in love with Camilla Rhodes (played now by Laura Elena Harring), who torments and rejects her. On Camilla's invitation, Diane attends a party at Adam's house on Mulholland Drive. Adam, who is a successful director, also appears to be in love with Camilla. Over dinner, Diane summarizes how she came to Hollywood and how she met Camilla at an audition for "The Sylvia North Story"; Adam and Camilla attempt to make an important announcement, but dissolve into laughter and kisses. Diane meets the bungling hit man in the diner, where she gives him Camilla's photo and a large amount of money. The hit man tells Diane that when the job is done, she will find a blue key. Back at her apartment, in view of the key, she is terrorized by hallucinations. She runs screaming to her bed where she shoots herself.
I don't think the article should provide answers to the 10 clues, or any more information that assists in any particular interpretation of the film. Simplicity is what we should be reaching for, especially for the plot. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the plot section should only describe the action as it is presented. Melissa kissing Camilla is presented; both of them looking at Diane is presented; Diane's tears are presented. Concerning the 10 clues, we can rely on WP:NOR to guide how they are handled. Some are just drawing attention to things presented in the film: for instance you have not removed mention of "The Sylvia North Story". I don't think this detail has a place in a skeletal plot section, but I am unconvinced that such a skeletal plot section is what readers want. I would guess 95+ percent come to the article having seen the film, thinking "WTF?" :-)
So, for instance, as I mentioned above, almost all observers point out that it is easy to reconstruct the narrative order in the second part of the film by observing what Diane is wearing, and whether DeRosa's ashtray is on Diane's coffee table. This implicitly answers one of the clues (or at least most of it: this observation doesn't raise the idea that Diane's coffee cup looks like the ones at Winkies).
(Now to matters of interpretation, which I put in brackets, since they don't have bearing on how the plot section should go. First, at the dinner scene, the attitude of other guests towards Camilla is quite explicit in the exchange in Spanish about her involvement with Luigi. Adam's response is "Who cares?". Camilla isn't clinging in my view: she's using him, and is completely in control. The kiss with Melissa doesn't involve any tongue hockey.
Second, concerning symbolism in the first part, yes the symbolism is not at all apparent. I didn't notice it on the first couple of viewings. However, the many interpretations, whether you agree with them or not, draw attention to facts whose symbolic nature is hard to dismiss: the way the camera highlights the portrait of Beatrice Cenci on several occasions; the use of the dark pink and pale blue colours that Betty wears for almost all of the first part; the green and yellow Winkies diner; the extra who walks by carrying a long red rod in the hit man - prostitute scene; the way that the scenes have been edited so that the scenes not involving Betty and Diane supply answers to the questions they ask. These are a few of many: the meaning of such symbolism is open to interpretation (e.g., to what extent are there references to the Wizard of Oz?), but the fact that there is symbolism here is widely agreed. I know most of this material comes from an open-ended pilot, but Lynch is a very deliberate film-maker; he found a remarkable way to tie it all together with additional shoots and careful editing, and he is quoted as saying as much.) Geometry guy 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As for leaving in the Sylvia North Story reference, I'm trying not to WP:OWN the article or dominate it more than I have. I would feel better without it in the plot, but I'm trying to find the line between quality and owning. If 95% of people come to the article after having seen it, they would have already seen what's in the film, and would benefit by the cited material in the rest of the article, not by a rehash of the plot. Those who have never seen the film would be completely confused by what I see is extra detail in the plot section. I read plot summaries for movies I don't want to see (slasher films, mostly), but yet I still want to know what the fuss is about. I hope at the least to urge people to see the film after reading the article, not be overwhelmed with confusion from the beginning.
What this article cannot do is present this film with any particular approach to symbolism and interpretation - this is what this scene means, for instance. This is why Lynch refuses to comment on it. He is a deliberate filmmaker, who presented a movie the way he wanted it, but he also wanted it to be ambiguous so it can be interpreted based on individual perception. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I take your point on the role of the plot section, but does the current plot section really show what the fuss is about to a new reader? For the second paragraph, I agree entirely apart from two things. First, I agree that we cannot favour any approach or symbolism, but we must say that symbolism and interpretations are significant in this film. Second I disagree that "he also wanted it to be ambiguous". He is quoted as saying that he likes it when viewers come to their own conclusions, but that isn't the same thing as wanting to make the film ambiguous. I don't find much ambiguity in the basic structure of the film, but there is a great deal of variation in audience response, both by those who have studied the film in depth and by first time viewers. That is what makes this such a great work. Geometry guy 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am reading, walking away, and re-reading and thinking on the plot. The following elements seem problematic to me, and potentially confusing for readers. If you feel these elements absolutely must stay, can we find a way to rewrite them?

  • 1st paragraph: sneaks into an apartment which has just been vacated by a red-headed older woman. I find this particularly confusing with references to Rita as a dark-haired woman in the same paragraph. Is the mention of Betty's aunt, or the red-haired woman, whoever she may be, absolutely essential to the understanding of the story?
  • 3rd paragraph: A casting agent takes her to the set of a film called "The Sylvia North Story", directed by Adam, where Camilla Rhodes gives an audition and Adam declares "This is the girl." By the time Betty gets there, Adam has already declared Camilla Rhodes is the girl. I'd like the verb tense of the sentence changed for accuracy. I also think we should break paragraphs after this sentence.
  • 3rd paragraph: A male performer explains in several languages that everything they see is an illusion; a woman performs a sad song, then collapses, although the song plays on. Would it suffice to take out "male"? Is there any particular reason that's in there? And the emcee/performer actually says what they hear is recorded, it's all an illusion, which is why I stated, "announced everything is an illusion" in my previous version. This is a matter of style for me, but to say that Rebekah del Rio performs a sad song is akin to saying the Declaration of Independence is ink on paper. While technically accurate, it bleeds the impact of the scene. At the same time, its effect cannot be done justice in the plot summary. That's why I left it out in my earlier rendition of the plot.
  • 4th paragraph: I still think the mention of The Cowboy and the red-haired woman in the transition is confusing. I think we need only one mention of Diane crying in this paragraph.

It seems nitpicky, but "brilliant prose" is a nebulous concept and quite difficult to attain. I'll be asking some of the most difficult reviewers I've ever worked with to look over this before it goes to FAC. They have busted my Wikinuts on previous articles, but the writing was vastly improved. --Moni3 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1st paragraph: it depends what you mean by "the understanding of the story"! The fact that the apartment is owned by an aunt figure is rather important to the understanding of the story. The fact that she has red hair is on a par with the Sylvia North reference: superficially it is unimportant, but red-headed women of a certain age are another symbol in the first part of the film (three others appear).
3rd paragraph. Misremembered, I think. Betty arrives during Carol's performance of "Sixteen reasons I love you" and exchanges eye contact with Adam. Then Camilla's audition begins, during which Adam says "This is the girl", then Betty flees. Again symbolic: a connection is broken by Camilla Rhodes.
3rd paragraph. Agreed, except I think we must mention the song.
4th paragraph. It is confusing because the plot is confusing. We can't skip over significant events because they are confusing. Mentioning the crying twice is redundant: is there some way to describe her evident emotional distress at the end of the scene without OR? The film uses the crashing of dishes. Geometry guy 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "understanding of the story" is relative. I really hope not to open a bucket of worms by stating this, but what is cited as a reference I read, and while many take the interpretation that Betty is Diane's dream (and many take that for granted that everyone knows and agrees), I did not read in reliable secondary sources breakdowns of symbolism to the extent that you're referencing. I read it on Lost on Mulholland Drive, but I can't use that. And I tend to agree with Roger Ebert et al who think overanalyzation is unnecessary. I think a lot of symbolism you're citing: the painting, the red hair, for example, are coincidental to the pilot - as these were present a year before it was turned into the finished film. (I know Lynch revisits many of them in the feature film, but they are not as neatly tied up in my opinion as they seem to be in yours.) By including these symbols in the Plot and not mentioning them later in the article with citations, they become misnomers.
Who misremembered the order? I'll watch it again tonight (oh, darn) to confirm, but the order is Betty's audition, walking down the hall with the casting agent, cut to the Connie Stevens song, then Camilla Rhodes audition, Adam declares, "This is the girl", then Betty arrives for long locked gazes with Adam then runs away.
4th paragraph issue with The Cowboy and the red-haired woman goes to my aforementioned point about not explaining them later in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely: I am only calling this stuff symbolism on the talk page, and I am trying to resist giving interpretations even here! We can only break down symbolism to the extent that reliable secondary sources do, but we can still state facts about what happens in the film, whether they are symbolic or not. I don't think we should pretend the plot is straightforward, when it evidently isn't. I don't have a strong view on how neatly Lynch managed to work symbolism from the pilot into the feature film, but he was evidently very satisfied by the result (as quoted in the "filming" section). The observation that symbols like the Cowboy have been overanalysed (and I completely agree that they have) does not take away from the observation that they are symbolic.
For the order, you may have misremembered because after "This is the girl", Adam and Betty exchange glances again, only sadder ones. If you watch the whole thing, rather than just this scene, check out the way the camera moves to highlight the painting on more than one occasion. The symbolism is already there in the pilot, where the different narratives are already being woven together in Lynchian style, even without the idea that this is Diane's dream. I was particularly startled by the scene with Gene the pool cleaner: I find the use of the colours Betty wears (pool chairs, paint tins) very difficult to dismiss as coincidental. But one of the great things about Lynch is the diversity of responses that his films generate. Geometry guy 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok I agree that Adam and Betty exchange long glances, sad or not, but my issue was that Adam chose Camilla before Betty got there. I'll continue to ruminate on this. I asked VanTucky specifically to review this for GA, and he agreed. He's so far the most challenging GA reviewer I've encountered. So the review may take place sooner than I anticipated. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he's thorough, that's good. I believe Adam and Betty first exchange glances during the previous audition; they exchange glances again after Adam chooses Camilla. The mood is different on the two occasions. Geometry guy 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tidbits

  • I asked BrighterOrange to run his dashbot over the page, btw.
  • I would like to make the quote boxes colored, and I don't know how to do that. Are there instructions somewhere on how to make pretties? --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think I have been dashing a bit: I hope dashbot will fix what I missed. Geometry guy 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    {{Quote box2}} - looks like you can choose the colour for this one. If you don't like that, there maybe others in Category:Quotation_templates. --BelovedFreak 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks BelovedFreak! --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor issues

I've had another read through the article, and (finally) looked at other comments on this talk page. I was curious about the argument about whether the article reads like a thesis or not. I don't think the distinction was really pinned down. For me, the distinction was drawn out nicely by reading Jbmurray's excellent essay on using Wikipedia as part of an educational assignment: "an encyclopedia entry should not be the place to develop an argument. This is the most fundamental difference between a more traditional essay assignment and wikipedia."

So, does the article develop an argument? No, I don't think so. It does not tell the reader what to think of the film, and is splendidly indifferent on the possible interpretation, as well as giving due weight to those which are more prominent.

That's not to say the treatment couldn't be improved, but I can only see very minor issues. Here are a few:

  • I found it a bit of a digression to discuss Watts' early acting experiences. There may be a place for this, but it is a bit odd to do it in the "Interpretations and allusions": it seems to suggest a link between her experiences and her interpretation. That sounds like advancing an argument to me, unless such an analysis can be attributed to a reliable source.
  • The first sentence of "Romantic content" seems to offer an analysis of the analysis. Can we really separate those who found the scenes "sincere" from those who were "titillated"? Unless the latter is being used to suggest "gratuitous", there isn't necessarily a conflict between the two reactions: one can find the scenes moving and erotic, sad and erotic, sad and unerotic, unnecessary and unerotic, and all sorts of other combinations.
  • He "recognizes that real art comes from classic filmmaking, as Lynch cast, thereby paying tribute to, veteran actors Ann Miller, Lee Grant, and Chad Everett." That appears to advance an argument, unless this analysis is in the source.
  • Why is a Justin Theroux quote paraphrased using the word "[heck's]"? If it is to omit an obscenity, note that Wikipedia is not censored.
  • I couldn't find reference to the observation/analysis that Rita is Diane's projection of an ideal Camilla, which I'm pretty sure can be found in reliable sources.
  • Similarly (although I'm less sure if this is in RS's), I think there could be reference to Betty's changes as the film progresses: she starts as innocent and naive, but by the end of the first part, she is lying to cover for Rita and breaking into an apartment.

Anyway, this is all pretty minor, and reading the article again was a real pleasure! Geometry guy 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Watts early experiences go to her interpretation of what the film means. I don't think it advances any argument other than it's a film whose interpretation is based in personal approach.
    • I had some material in the Romantic content section from other sources that took a more lurid posture on the lesbian content, but I removed it on the suggestion of another editor. I wrote that introductory/topic sentence more to introduce the quote from Heather Love about the media reaction to the film. Personally, a lot of that was really hard for me to read. What do you suggest here?
    • Real art comes from classic filmmaking and the veteran actors was from the source.
    • Justin Theroux's outtake is verbatim from the source. I don't know what it replaced: hell or fuck, but I copied it exactly as it looks.
    • Are you referring to Rita's character description? That should be in her character analysis and it should be cited.
    • Betty's changes: I can look to find more information (in fact I know I read it in at least one source that Betty lies about Rita to Coco), but that sort of melds into the issues presented in the Character sections about identity. It's not presented in the film that Betty in the beginning is honest to the core, just really naive. More sources presented Betty as a perky Nancy Drew, so breaking into an apartment to solve Rita's mystery may not be out of character for her. But I can expand this point in her section in Characters if it's a big deal. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      Thanks for the quick replies! Replies to replies :-)... "It's a film who's interpretation is based in personal approach": my question is, who says that Watts' interpretation is based on her personal experiences? Does Watts say this? Does the source say this? If so, the article should say so; if not, this is speculation.
      For the "Romantic content" section, I suggest an opening sentences that simply says different critics have responded in various ways to the relationship, without actually describing in what ways. The Heather Love quote is difficult to handle, I agree. Something could be added at the beginning of that paragraph, or the first sentence could be reworked a bit to introduce the quote. If I get any more concrete ideas, I'll let you know.
      Next two points: very good. Next one, yes, Rita's character description would be a good place for this, if it can be sourced. Thanks for offering to look into the Betty character development: it isn't a big deal, but the expansion you suggest sounds good to me, and much better than my simplistic analysis. Geometry guy 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
More random order. Oops, this cited reference: Instead of punishing Camilla for such public humiliation, as is suggested by Diane's conversation with the bungling hit man, one critic views Rita as the vulnerable representation of Diane's desire for Camilla. is under Camilla Rhodes, not Rita. I can move it, I suppose, but it applies to both characters and flows better in Camilla's paragraph.
I'm going to go over my sources for the personal interpretation point, and I'll work on rewriting the introductory sentences for the Romantic content section. As for Betty's character development, the majority of information I read addressed her issues of identity melding into Rita's. The second paragraph that is about the audition is the primary example of her hidden nature, but I can add a sentence, perhaps, about her changing personality... Let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restart indent:

Naomi Watts' full quote from Interview magazine: "Everyone's got a different interpretation of it. But I had to make something up for myself so I could make some solid coherent choices. (Quote in article already) The hardest part for me was playing Betty, because she was less naturalistic than Diane. I needed to make her human somehow. When I see her now, I go, "Oh, my God, you're a psycho." But there were places I tried to show that she had deeper dimensions, for example, when she turns detective." --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I read through my sources, which helped shore up some other sentences that I felt needed help, but other than providing the full quote from Watts, above, I'm struggling to provide changes for Betty, and how to change the sentences for the Romantic content section. The only thing I could think of was to add "However," in front of the quote from Heather Love. I can add the treatment by less serious sources that proves more sensationalist reaction to the content (this photo should be enough, in my opinion), although I understand the comment from Bigtimepeace that rejected the appropriateness of these sources. If you have any concrete ideas, please share them. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. The Watts quote is very interesting, but doesn't support what the article currently says about where her interpretation comes from. Anyway, to get out of "I'm the reviewer, please fix this" mode, I spent some time looking at the sources which are online and found two which contain the Rita interpretation, and one with a hint at Betty's character development. The latter is Variety (Todd McCarthy), and the quote is "you just know that, with all the sinister goings-on in the Lynchian demimonde of Los Angeles, this girl isn't going to remain sweet, guileless and uncorrupted for long."
The analysis of Rita can be found at rollingstone.com: "Harring... makes Rita a ravishing blank slate on which Betty draws her fantasies." In the second Salon link, there is also "It's obviously a dream of a world in which her relationship with Camilla was different -- a place where Camilla loves her and is dependent on her."
I hope these help. Geometry guy 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I re-read those reviews. What I was envisioning instead was a source that tracks the changes Betty goes through. Although, we can't really say that they're changes since she's new to the audience. She's chirpy, she likes Rita, she starts to lie for Rita, she goes to this audition where she turns from perky to pseudo-dominatrix apparently at the drop of a chord, then she breaks into an apartment. I think it's established in the article that some folks think she's too good to be true.
And both Rita's character description includes a "blank slate" reference, and the Watts quote in Interpretations likens Rita to a doll that Betty controls, so that has already been introduced. I suppose the question is always - how much proof does the article really need? Some claims are nuttier or more likely to be challenged than others. I don't think these claims are that nutty, however. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, they aren't that nutty, but I find myself losing a grip on what a reliable source is for this article, see the next section. Geometry guy 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

This probably doesn't have a lot to do with improving the article, but is a reflection on my experience in reading the online sources for the article. In short, I find myself questioning what makes a source reliable, when in fact these so-called reliable sources are full of factual errors. Disclaimer: some of these factual errors may be inaccuracies in my memory, but it is pretty unlikely that they all are.

  1. Multiple sources refer to the character played by Richard Green (the performer who says that this is all an illusion) as the emcee, and one even says he introduces Rebekah del Rio. He is not: in the credits he is referred to as "The Magician" (so I retract my earlier OR apology). He disappears in a puff of smoke, and the character played by Geno Silva ("Emcee" in the credits) introduces Rebekah del Rio.
  2. Multiple sources state that the hitman says he will leave the key on Diane's coffee table. He doesn't say that: he says he will leave it in the place he told her. Some of these sources then infer that Diane has only just seen the blue key when she wakes up. There is nothing in the narrative which supports this.
  3. More than one (e.g. Salon) refer to noone answering the final phone in the chain phonecall, but that is inaccurate: the scene is cut, so we don't know whether someone answers the phone or not.
  4. Why do so many sources refer to the film's many "extended lesbian scenes"? There are two, right? And the first one is not that long, the second even shorter. I guess this is part of what Heather Love is saying.
  5. The second Salon article, for all its early insight, is full of factual errors. "The hit guy tries to strangle her" - really? "Then he shoots a janitor who wanders by. Then he shoots the janitor's vacuum cleaner and starts a fire, which sets off alarms and sprinklers." Wanders by? Sprinklers? Misquote of the Cowboy "If you do what you're told, you'll see me one more time,"... "If you don't do what you're told, you'll see me two more times." That should be "If you do good", and "If you do bad", right? The Sylvia North Story is not directed by Paul Bruckner, but Bob Brooker. In the Silencio scene, it misidentifies the emcee, and then says "Up in the balcony, the pair begin crying." They aren't in the balcony, the blue haired woman is. At the very end, it states "The couple laugh maniacally." after Diane shoots herself. No, her gunshot silences them (presumably because they are figments of her imagination). I'm stunned by some of the naiveness of the analysis in this source. Referring to Betty and Diane, it says "If you look closely, you see they're the same actress." Now, for most people, the fact that this is the same actress is what seriously disorients them about the film. Finally, this source has an abysmal description of the film's origins as a TV pilot.
  6. Rollingstone.com states that after the jitterbug intro, we see "a fever dream, with a woman twisting and turning in bed." No we don't. We see a bed and a pillow, which is probably a point of view shot of someone (Diane, methinks) falling asleep. It also says "'No hay banda,' says the sleazy MC (Geno Silva)". Wrong.
  7. Variety describes the pool cleaner as a gardener.
  8. The Village Voice says "Where did Rita's suitcase full of money come from? What is the significance of the blue key in her pocket?" Suitcase? Pocket? These things were both found in her handbag!
  9. Multiple sources refer to a "dwarf" in the film, because they know Michael Anderson is a dwarf. But is the character really portrayed as a dwarf?
  10. Glenn Kenny appears to have absolutely no idea what the film is about. Why is it useful to quote him?
  11. The anthropoetics source does not make any glaring mistakes and has a reasonable analysis, but what makes it a reliable source?
  12. The Guardian summary of reliable film critics is, frankly, embarrassing. Roger Ebert picks the more implausible of two explanations offered by the Salon article for the older couple, and most of the other reviewers hide behind a "there is no interpretation" facade.

Many of these sources have their origins in reviews in which the reviewer saw the film only once and had to provide an article on it. Some of the articles have been improved with time. Indeed, there is much that is credible in these sources. The Salon article, while incorrect on detail, is coherent when it considers the bigger picture.

I ought to know what makes a reliable source, but still I find myself struggling to provide answers as to why these are reliable sources, when they get so many things wrong. I could retreat under a blanket of WP:NOR, I suppose, but instead I will just raise the question. Shouldn't we dismiss inaccurate sources as unreliable? Why is Salon.com more reliable than mulholland-drive.net? In contrast to the numerous inaccuracies in reliable sources, I have found no factual errors in Alan Shaw's essay. Sure, he overanalyzes and overinterprets, and some of his deductions will make many readers chuckle, but if his detailed analysis contains a misquote or a factual error, I have not found it. If anyone has, please let me know. Otherwise, why is his essay not a reliable source, when all of these factually incorrect sources are? Again, I think I know some responses to this question, but they leave me very unsatisfied, so better answers would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When I got down to brass tacks adding references to the article that became my first FA, I was horrified at the sloppy inaccuracies about the topic. Much of it was on the internet, but I was more astounded at what was in print. It just so happened that I chose a WP:BLP for my first, so I wrote to my subject, asking her what was accurate since I just didn't know. I have since grown more accustomed to finding contradictions and outright false information and I find it a minor annoyance. Sure, some of the inaccuracies in reviews came about for writers who saw the film once or twice and had to meet a deadline. I figured when I was writing that first article that a good editor has to consciously include what is accurate and leave out what is not, just like choosing which quotes best fit the point of the section. I read an analysis that presented as fact that Diane is a prostitute and a drug addict, (perhaps referencing the woman earlier in the film, maybe - who knows) and The Cowboy is her pimp...WTF?
Perhaps your question is better suited for the WP:RS page, because I don't think I can answer it sufficiently. Inaccuracies in sources will inevitably prove to be all over the place, not limited to film articles, or even articles on popular culture. It's frightening to imagine them being in science or medicine sources, but I imagine they're there, too. Your question goes to the nature of shared knowledge, even the function and role of Wikipedia itself. --Moni3 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, to some extent I was just letting off steam, and wasn't asking anyone in particular, but it is kind of you to comment in response to my rant! I don't know whether WP:RS can help me, as I know the official answers: maybe my own attitude during the WP:ATT debate can. I was pro WP:ATT, and one of my arguments was that Wikipedia is primarily about knowledge rather than truth: WP is as much about what is believed to be true (by "reliable sources") as about what is actually true. Still, a cold fact is a cold fact, and I don't think we should propagate information, however widely believed, which can be refuted by a fact. Do you think this means we can call the Richard Green character a magician? Are the credits of the movie a cold fact? Is it original research to say that the reliable sources which refer to him as an emcee are wrong?
(Complete aside and probably OR. Concerning the prostitute thing, it is outrageous to present such a theory as fact, and I've no idea where the Cowboy-pimp idea comes from, but I do understand the prostitution suggestion. As I'm sure you know well, one hint of this is the chain call leading to the red lampshade. Another is something I've mentioned already: the ordering of the scenes, which isn't entirely random. Interestingly, as I hinted on your talk page, it seems that the hitman-prostitute-pimp scene did not come immediately before the "Where did the money come from?" scene in the pilot: this is one of the changes Lynch made to tie the multiple threads of the pilot together. So, the analysis goes, where did Diane get the money to pay for a hitman? And this connection offers answer. Well, whatever, it is clear that Diane's life is troubled: how troubled is a matter for interpretation.) Geometry guy 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to MatthewEdwards

I'm not sure how to reply to your comments in the format they're in in the peer review page, since I'm barely able to edit what I do.

  • You may be able to catch our extended discussion above about what goes in the plot and what doesn't. There may be confusing elements, but I don't think it advisable to clarify some of the confusion because it is not shown implicitly in the film. The following elements cannot be clarified for that reason:
    • Why does Betty flee before she can meet Adam?
    • "Upon returning to the apartment to open the box, Betty disappears, and Rita unlocks it and it falls to the floor." Disappears how, or to where?
    • "The woman with the red hair investigates the sound, but nothing is there." What sound? Where did she come from? Didn't she vacate the apartment?
  • The comparison to Sunset Boulevard was, in fact, questioned in a separate peer review.
  • The 3 references to Nancy Drew indicate that multiple reviewers compared the character to Drew.
  • I've changed them, but is it really MOS to have to list references in numerical order?
  • Multiple critics and analysts referred to Rita as a femme fatale, and nearly all of them described her as dark and beautiful. I had to paraphrase, but I can cite - well, all of them, I guess.
  • The [heck] is verbatim from the source. I wasn't censoring. The source was.
  • The (thinks it) and (and Betty) are verbatim from the source. I did not add them.
  • I intend to bring the article to WP:LOCE. I went through the article to make sure all ellipses were  ...
  • In the Performance section, it lists Joel Coen as the other director Lynch shared the Cannes award with.
  • I don't know how to make the table widths the same, actually. I stole those tables from Pulp Fiction.

I appreciate the time you took to read and review the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think the formatting got messed up because I put "Comments from {{User:Matthewedwards}}" instead of square brakets to link to my name by accident!
The numerical order of references is something that is often requested at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. It makes sense, and if it's not mentioned on the MOS page I think it should be. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, so I'm going off to investigate! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B-class only?

This article is clearly better than B-class - it's approaching FA. I say A-class and GA nomination. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is already nominated for GA. For A-Class, ask at WT:WikiProject Films: they have an Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Review#A-Class_review process, but I don't know how active it is, or whether they would only consider GAs for A-Class review. Of course, I agree with you that the article is excellent. Geometry guy 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why, Aquillyne, you are my best friend now. I have asked the powerfully intelligent, remarkably handsome, and painfully witty VanTucky to review the article for GA because he's thorough. But I did that 2 weeks ago or so. I wonder if I should give Mr. Universe a nudge. He just went through an RFA and is newly wielding a mop... --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nudge gladly accepted, though I'm dubious about the new title and the compliments (you baldfaced flatterer!). I'll get to it forthwith, sorry for the wait. VanTucky 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

Hello. I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've read through Production history, and everything looks really good so far. The only major problem I see is that Image:Mulholland.png needs a specific fair-use rationale for this article. Other than that, there are some comma and minor grammar problems, but I don't mind fixing those myself when I'm done with the review. I'll continue the review tomorrow. Nikki311 03:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added. Let me know what else you need. --Moni3 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've finished reading over the article and did minor copy editing. The article meets all of the Good Article criteria:

  1. Well written?: Pass
  2. Factually accurate?: Pass
  3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
  4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
  5. Article stability? Pass
  6. Images?: Pass

There is only one issue I have. The following sentence seems awkward to me: Her guilt and regret are evident in her suicide, and throughout the clues that continue to surface in the first portion of the film that something is dark and wrong in Betty and Rita's world. I've read it a couple of times and still don't quite understand its meaning. I think maybe a word is missing in the second part of the sentence, as it is an incomplete thought. Fix that, and I'll pass the article. Nikki311 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Changed the sentence. See if that makes any more sense. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That makes much more sense. I'm sorry about changing the quotes, I was trying to avoid doing that, but I guess I missed a couple. Congrats to everyone who worked on the article. It is now a Good Article! Nikki311 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Moni3 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cast photo – Betty

Does this caption for the photo of Betty and Irene need a source: "Betty is bright and optimistic, in contrast with Watts' portrayal of Diane in the latter part of the film."? Could this be considered WP:OR or can it stand as is?
Jim Dunning | talk 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's set right next to a paragraph with multiple citations that back up the claim. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh. I read too quickly and missed the "palpably frustrated and depressed woman" bit. The Holden NYT piece seems to cover the contrast part fine then, but he describes Diana as a "hardened ... vixen". Wouldn't a description of her (in the article) of something like "hardened shrew" instead be a closer characterization of Holden's take? Or is it covered in the Ridgway or Johnson treatments?
Jim Dunning | talk 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. Are you asking the description of Diane's character be altered? Or change the caption in the Betty photo?
What I've had to do in this article is find the fine line between citing every comment and accurately reporting. Citations after every sentence are distracting, so I've paraphrased the commentary about the characters from what I've read. For instance, multiple reviewers describe Betty is perky, plucky, optimistic, naive, and bright, and reviews describe Rita as beautiful, lost and confused. So in order to make it read well, I've paraphrased their descriptions then back them up with a quote, then more in-depth analysis. I've been very deliberate about POV issues, making sure that no undue weight is given to any interpretation of the film's meaning. I allow the analyses to offer interpretations and the article to describe what is seen in the film. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theories clarification

The poisonous valentine section opens with, "Regardless of the proliferation of theories, movie reviewers note that no single explanation satisfies all of the loose ends and questions that arise from the film." Wouldn't this be better if it said, "The proliferation of theories confirms reviewers' comments that no single ..."? That aside, however, can the statement even be made since I don't see a supporting source or subsequent statements for the assertion that "no single explanation satisfies". It seems orphaned. Maybe something was inadvertently deleted in some editing?
Jim Dunning | talk 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Be careful what you copy edit. I have 5 articles I'm working on about the Everglades and you may be recruited. On to your question: I prefer the sentence leading in from "Regardless..." as it connects the previous section and offers flow between them. I think the claim can be made, and I think the cited information does support the claim since there are many theories offered for the interpretation. Right now I think the cited claims in the Interpretations section, particularly The Guardian citations, and the quote following the sentence in question backs up the sentence. I'm writing an article now, but this is up for FA. If I need to focus on backing up that claim, I can, but I don't think it's out in left field. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)