Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Name Change 2 Scenes in a big-rig? 3 Full-frontal Nudity? Where? 4 Rebekah del Rio? 5 Interpretation 6 Similar Movies 7 Gospel and Bob Crane sections 8 My "original" interpretation 9 wording of "common interpretation" 10 Dan and Herb brothers? 11 Blanking

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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-)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)?

[edit] 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)