Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Name Change

I contest this move. Only in the signpost logo is the movie called "Mulholland Dr." On the official website listed, as well as on the Universal Studios page for the movie, it's referred to repeatedly as "Mulholland Drive". -Branddobbe 20:10, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, aside from the movie box cover, I was also going by the IMDb listing. I was trying to avoid using parentheses in the title, but if you feel the longer title is clearer or more correct, feel free to move it back to Mulholland Drive (movie). IMDb does list "Mulholland Drive" as an alternate title. --Minesweeper 04:21, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
Ummmmm...the final frame of the film (the end of the end credits) has the name of the movie as "Mulholland Drive".
I removed the "incorrectly" as the the webpage itself uses both Drive (in the URL) and Dr. (in the street sign). I take it the official title is "Drive", but "Dr." is an acceptable variant.
Will do. (About the parentheses, I don't think that an article about the street is even necessary, but that's an entirely different issue.) -Branddobbe 21:39, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
It's arguable, esp. given the prolific number of articles on demonstrably less important topics. Mulholland Dr. is a quite famous street...for a variety of reasons. It's not just any old street.

Scenes in a big-rig?

Is it confirmed that Anderson did his scenes in a big-rig? I thought he was just on a forced perspective set. Gazpacho 12:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Full-frontal Nudity? Where?

Lynch edited it to remove the full-frontal nudity of one of the actresses, allegedly at her request – which actress? android79 03:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Laura Harring - this section is a bit unclear so I'm fixing it up. -- Jon Dowland 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
But Laura Harring does STILL have full frontal nudity: when she goes to bed with Naomi Watts. --Gspinoza 22:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In the bed scene, Laura Harring's privates have been blurred.
Yes, if I remember correctly it only showed the full frontal in the theatrical release, but was blurred on DVD. Apparently, Laura Harring made a compromise with Lynch where she would appear nude, but only if it was blurred when the film was released to DVD. She was afraid that it would be ripped and appear all over the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.24.120 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebekah del Rio?

Rebekah del Rio plays herself in the scene where Betty and Rita go to the Club Silencio and when she appears on the stage she delivers a really beautiful rendition of Roy Orbison's Crying (in Spanish, yet) but can't somebody get around to writing an article on Rebekah del Rio? Birthdate, career, background, discography, that sort of thing.

If you need an external link for Rebekah Del Rio, try http://www.rebekahdelrio.com where she signs herself as La Llorona de Los Angeles (Spanish for "the crooner of Los Angeles." David Lynch knew of her way back in the days of Twin Peaks, and it was because of this that he'd brought her in for the singing sequence in Club Silencio.


La Llorana actually translates to "the weeper" or "crier", using the feminine form, making it "the crying woman" - referencing an urban legend that dates back to 1500s Mexico City http://urbanlegendsonline.com/hauntings/llorana.html --Mr kitehead 04:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

To do away with interpretation of this film here is like saying "it is claimed that some guy named Jesus died and came back to life" under the entry of "Christianity." It's clearly absurd. The foremost question on most people's minds after seeing it will be "what does it mean?" If an encyclopedia entry does not even attempt to answer that, what good is it? The "go to IMDB to interpret" comment hardly makes any sense at all: if this is the standard to be followed, why write anything of this movie on Wikipedia at all? Why not just provide a link to IMDB and be done with it? Additionally, the insertion of the phrase "identity switch" is not a complete sentence. It's also plainly wrong: it implies that in the second part of the movie Watts plays Diane and Harring plays Betty. And dammit, that sexual encounter IS "highly erotic!" 8-)

Why won't you accept that Lynch was passed his creative peak when he made this film and that he was just gaming us by heavily dressing a non-plot in symbolism to have a good laugh at the expense of film-geeks?
are you aware that original research is prohibited at wikipedia? are you aware that uncited POV (and more) is prohibited? i understand that this may seem crazy at first, but there are ways to make comprehensive articles within the constraints. it just isn't easy, nor should it be. the reverted material is unencyclopedic crap. it's barely even non-crap outside of an encyclopedia. "However, there is a dominant interpretation that is accepted by a majority of viewers:" yeah? cite it. i could cite the bible for your example above, and it could be done smoothly (unlike that straw man example). you're up. Wbfl 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if you're right it's still a lame thing to write.
If it was Roger Ebert who said that Betty and Diane's sexual contact was highly erotic, or even, somehow, erotic in some other sort of way, maybe his name could be cited? That does sort of sound like Ebert's style but I'll leave it up to you to dig it up, or root it out, if it can be done.
He doesn't use that exact phrase in his review. But he certainly strongly implies that in it.
It seems you have completely missed my point, which is that interpretation is a critical part. "Just the facts" are completely inappropriate, since such obviously abstract materials have to be accompanied by interpretations. Besides, this interpretation is hardly my original research. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of Freudian dream interpretation, which is hardly an esoteric doctrine, can see it. But if it must have a source, here is one (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/11/07/mulholland_dream/index.html?x). Finally, your rudeness merely undermines your own credibility. You may disagree, but there's no need to call other's writing "crap." BTW, what's up with that "identity switch" phrase? Why put it there to imply that in the second part of the movie Watts and Harring switch roles -- which they clearly DON'T do? And why can't it be a complete sentence?
lordy lordy. i'll assume you're not talking to me about "identity switch", since i didn't put it in the article. take it out. to your claim that my "rudeness merely undermines your own credibility", that's absurd. only a lazy person can't separate my "rudeness" from my argument, which is entirely what my credibility relies upon. it's common for newbies at wikipedia to be disgusted when their attempts at brilliant prose are zapped. tough. get used to it. learn WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. then, if you must, attempt to add interpretation zalwonkey in an encylopedic manner. if you don't want to do that, start a blog. go to the imdb forums. do something other than corrupt articles here. above all, don't expect others to conform sloppy material to encyclopedic standards; it's gonna get thrashed. i assure you. add it properly, and i'll protect it, though i think it's all arbitrary, presumptive hogwash that spits in the face of lynch's unique power. Wbfl 20:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wbfl, while I agree much of the more speculative assertions on interpretation or allusions needed toning down, what you have essentially done is extract all references and comments on interpretation. This is going too far in the other direction. Saying that interpretation has no place by definition is patently absurd. And while interpretation itself may be original research and directly introducing it into a wikipedia article may violate NOR policy, the existence of critical interpretation itself and the objective reporting of the substance of critical interpretation by others is NOT a violation of NOR policy. By your reasoning, the article on Shakespeare should contain nothing expressing verifiable opinions on Shakespeare's style, reputation, interpretations of his works, or critical theory. Do you consider any critical interpretation beyond the rote facts of Shakespeare's life and the most dry plot summaries of his plays to be "zalwonkey"?? It is true that the "dream interpretation" is the most common interpretation offered by those who have thought about the film, and this is verifiable in a number of independent essays, opinion pieces, commentaries, and even scholarly articles, some of which are even listed in the external links. Moreover, it is an interpretation for which considerable empirical support from the film itself can be garnered. In fact, I wonder how seriously you can really be taken, given that you seem to be predisposed against interpreatation as a matter of principle. ("Though I think it's all arbitrary presumptive hogwash that spits in the face of Lynch's unique power.") You don't bother to explain exactly what you mean by "all" here, but you definitely seem to have a bias against the whole notion of literary or interpretative criticism as a useful or meaningful activity. And this certainly undermines your credibility. Revolver 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Some one should comment on the fact that Lynch has several clues in the DVD box. (PM)

Similar Movies

When you carefully omit references to Carnival of Souls and Contempt, you are doing a major disservice to viewers not interested in your Freudian slant on Mulholland Drive. If you want to employ dream analysis (Freudian, Jungian, or whatever) to interpret Mulholland Drive, fine, go for it, but do realize that the viewpoint you insist on, in apparent belief that it is shared by the majority, may simply not be the case. Every major scene in Mulholland Drive is also present in Contempt, from the jitterbug scene to the impossible car crash, including a difference in visions between the lowbrow producer and the enduring director. The differences don't end there. They even include an up-and-coming actress willing to do anything - whatever it takes - to realize her dreams and desires. You'll even find the transformation of the main character from a blonde to brunette, and it happens in the very middle of the movie, too.

Jean-Luc Godard's movie Contempt even closes with the same mysterious word - Silencio!
In the case of Contempt, that word is Italian for Lights, Camera, Action.
In both of those two movies, both the storylines end on the same word. After it is uttered, the final scenes fade into silence.

I wouldn't automatically assume that mention of the films was "omitted". It could just be that the people who wrote the article so far, haven't seen those. And why do the similarities to the 2 films you mention preclude the "apparent belief shared by the majority"? The main advantage of the dream analysis seems to have been that it provides some kind of understanding to the bizarre plot structure. You've listed mainly character or scene similarities, which doesn't have to preclude that. (Of course, I haven't seen the two.) And the transformation in MD is from brunette to blonde, not vice versa. That change is more like Vertigo. Revolver 07:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gospel and Bob Crane sections

A lot of work has gone into these. It's a shame because they're original research and so will have to be deleted. Here is a link to the last version including them, in case anyone thinks there is salvageable material in them [1] The Singing Badger 19:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood—NOR is a good rule. You're making me work to get these ideas out there! I'll make the time to write them up more formally and published elsewhere. If they are published, then they'll be fair game on Wikipedia again. Stsmith 14:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

My "original" interpretation

I understand the constraints placed for an encyclopedic article, but as an avid user of Wikipedia I would like to find here all relevant information (and interpretations) that can help me understand the movie. In this sense I find the talk pages usefull, as we are not bound by such constraints. What follows is my interpretation for everyones benefit and I hope that everyone adds comments.

Mullholland Drive starts after Diane has shot herself, death is not instant, and in those brief moments she falls into a dream state where her fantasies are collected into one. This dream culminates when two thirds into the movie, they arrive at the Silencio performance and she finally dies at the end. What happens between the singing act and the word "silencio" being uttered at the end of the film, and performance, is Lynch's way of introducing the "real" events that led Diane to kill herself, unveiling the film's mistery and providing us with the keys to solve it.

Lynch takes several liberties in his narrative which is not linear, but unlike memento, where you can re-edit the film on a chronological basis, here you cannot do that without ignoring several scenes or falling to schizophrenia yourself. The main problems lies in how he introduces the real events that led to her suicide and intermingles them with parts of her post suicide dream and with her pre-suicide hallucinations.

I have found Lynch's list extremely usefull, in particular the first point: -Pay particular attention to the beginning of the film: at least two clues are revealed before the credits.

The two clues are her grandparents and the pillow. The film ends with Diane being led to suicide by the hallucination of her grandparents frenzy. Similarly the film begins with them in frenzy after she recalls winning the dancing contest. Secondly we see how she falls into the pillow, a metaphor for falling asleep, and her last real experience as she has just shot herself.

The rest of the points are just as usefull. Good luckCgonzalezdelhoyo 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much spot on, but what's missing from this interpretation, and from most others I've seen, is the screaming-at-us point that the film jumps chronology from post-dream to pre-dream near the end. Watch it. While Diane's standing at the sink, the camera switches from left to right. Her hair is different. She goes to the sofa and there is Camilla, who wasn't there before (well, she'd been killed). The key isn't on the table. It's pre-dream - and almost all the characters and events who appear in her dream also appear in that small section of the film before the end (cowboy, woman "getting the pool guy", Sylvia North Story film title, "Aunt Ruth", café with waitress, hitman, ETC!). I know it's only my interpretation, and there's no place for it in the article, but it's very upsetting for me to see the "final third" of the film described as though it's one chronological chunk. It so isn't! Grrr! (and breathe) Tobycek (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

wording of "common interpretation"

The last sentence of the interpretation section's first paragraph is, "The second half of the film serves to present the bleak reality of Diane's actual life, a life where her personal and professional wishes and desires have fallen tragically short, her lover Rita is still alive, and Betty is the successful actress." This makes sense to me until the last two clauses. Rita still alive? Didn't Rita only exist in the first half of the film, and isn't her counterpart, Camilla, dead? And Betty a successful actress? Isn't Betty (in the second half) the waitress at the diner? --Allen 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No response; I've removed the clauses. --Allen 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dan and Herb brothers?

What is the basis for calling Dan and Herb (the two characters at Winkies) brothers? Is there any reference to this in the film (or, for that matter, elsewhere)?

Blanking

I see someone recently edited the article to include the films "references" and giving their thoughts on what the different "symbols" (like the cowboy, ect.) mean. A lot of this is just opinion and I don't think it adds anything to the article. It can’t be proven because it’s just opinion. It certainly doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article, but a fan article instead. While the film does seem to pay homage to and/or reference other films (like "The Wizard of Oz", ect.), without an absolute conformation by Lynch, we cannot be absolutely certain. All of this makes the article look amateurish. It's unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.78.136 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

If citations are needed, I'll work on them as time allows. Meantime I humbly suggest you do some serious reading up on both the film Mulholland Drive and on Wikipedia policy. For starters, editing by revert is wholly unacceptable. Please stop that. Thank you. Gwen Gale 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I have read up on the film. I own it and know much about it. But I see no point in listing all the interpretations (on the plot and so-called "symbols") that people have---there are hundreds. I think the most logical thing to do is include the most common and widespread basic interpretation. Besides, if anyone wants to read up on all the theories that people have there's a link to "Lost on Mullholand Drive" (mulholland-drive.net) at the bottom of the page in the links section. I had a problem with things like saying the cowboy is a reference to old Hollywood westerns or a certain outfit is a reference to another film. While quite possibly so, you have no way of truly knowing and it's just a POV. Like with the cowboy, that's just someone's random opinion and is not some widespread belief, nor does it really add anything to the article. Like I said, if you list all the random theories/interpretations that people have it makes the article drag and go on forever (and it looks sloppy and not like an encyclopedia article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.78.136 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
I was a bit puzzled at the Pulp Fiction reference! It's a vaguely similar idea, but hardly "paying homage". Lugnuts 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you're so puzzled. The film has a consensus interpretation for which citations are readily available and even the allusions are widely documented. Lynch's paucity of comment is irrelevent to both citing the topic and WP policy. I don't like edit warring and don't appreciate argument by blanking but I'll hold off until I have time to cite the content which was blanked. Gwen Gale 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the only survivor

Very trivial, I'm aware, but Rita wasn't the only survivor of the car crash. The driver is later seen, bruised but alive, having woken up later for when the police are on the scene. ALCUS36 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I see no evidence that abbreviating the word "Drive" to "Dr." isn't just a stylised form; everyone pronounces it "drive". Most reviewers call it "Mulholland Drive", in full. Some people might see a request like this as a devious way of sidestepping due process; it is more transparent to request a move (for example) from Mulholland Drive (film) to Mulholland Dr., rather than going through Mulholland Dr. (film). --Stemonitis 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support move: It is listed by Imdb and All Movie Guide as "Mulholland Dr.". Amended: Support (film) disambiguation per PC78.
Comment: The disambiguating term most certainly isn't superfluous, as I have indicated above. PC78 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for pointing that out to me. Skomorokh incite 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Support it's the correct name, as per IMDB, per Lynch's site, and per anyone who can read. Lugnuts 18:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Support move to Mulholland Dr. (film) but oppose move to Mulholland Dr., per comments above. PC78 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this; there certainly is a risk of confusion between this article and the article about the road. Dekimasuよ! 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're an idiot, then yes. It's easy to have each article pointing to the other at the top of the page. EG: For Mulholland Dr. clearly state "This article is about the David Lynch film, for the road, see Mulholland Drive" and vice-versa. Lots of articles with similar names have this on them. Lugnuts 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Mulholland Dr. should redirect to Mulholland Drive because that's the primary topic, not the film. And keep your "idiot" remarks to yourself. PC78 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So you can't tell the difference between an article about a road and one about a film? Lugnuts 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined towards oppose. It is not clearly established that the "actual title" of the film is abbreviated. The official web site uses "Mulholland Drive" consistently -- with the exception of the image of the street sign. Most reviewers use the title "Mulholland Drive". And Mulholland Dr. should be a redirect to the actual street. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Answers to Clues section

I removed the "Answers" section which gave very basic, naive, and completely subjective "answers" to the clues. Of course, there are no "correct" answers, and even if there were, the answers provided in this section were not helpful to understanding the film. Case in point: An accident is a terrible thing, where did the accident happen? The "answer" provided in this section was "Mulholland Drive". Yes, the accident did take place on Mulholland Drive. But -where- on Mulholland Drive? THAT is what Lynch is asking the viewer to pay attention to. This same basic and naive treatment to the clues was given in each of the answers, and it does the film and the film's wikipedia entry a disservice.

Interpretation and 10 Clues

Is there a particular reason why the actual 10 clues were removed? That seems like exactly the kind of thing that folks who want to get more information on the film from Wikipedia would be looking for. At the least we could link to an external site that discusses these "clues" (while hopefully including the caveat that Lynch may have been somewhat forced into including clues in the first place--it's not exactly something he usually does).

There also seems to have been more interpretive material in the past, though it seems much of that was original research. Again, this article could do a real service to readers by mentioning various interpretations that have been offered in reliable sources. What we have now is completely inadequate. Any thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Category: Surrealist films

In removing the film from the above category I was mainly influenced by a strong impression that Lynch has long left his surrealist days behind. There are some sequences in the film that could be said to show a surrealist influence, but on the whole I found the film to be a narrative with two points of view, and a smattering of surreal elements of a type that Lynch uses, characteristically, to heighten dramatic tension. It's a judgement call, I might as well have retained it on the basis of Lynch's earlier work. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony and I discussed this on his talk page (along with some general issues about the category) and I think it's okay to keep this film in the "Surrealist films" category for now. Of course if other editors object the issue certainly remains open for discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the category for INLAND EMPIRE. I think some work needs to be done on cleaning up this article though. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd improve it by teaching it how to yodel, but I somehow don't think this problem is amenable to surrealist solutions. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you really know how to yodel? I never saw you over at the now (thankfully) defunct "WikiProject Teaching Quick Pitch Change To Smarty-Arty-Articles." Telephones falling down a pink staircase. Yes, that article is in need of some real work, but personally I am not at all an expert on the topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Surrealist walks into a bar. A chocolate bar. Breaks every bone in his body. --Tony Sidaway 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Two - one to paint a giraffe and one to fill a bathtub with orange tools. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)