MovieChat Forums > Mulholland Dr. (2001) Discussion > Can someone explain the whole movie to m...

Can someone explain the whole movie to me?

posted 9 years ago by Flanneletteshirt
69 replies | jump to latest

I got lost so many times. I know i wasnt watching properly but i don't have time to watch it again.

Thanks!!!!

[–] pauls191 9 years ago

It's bits and pieces of a cancelled tv show.

[–] brigmill 9 years ago

This is hardly the case. I realize that it was originally intended as a pilot to a TV series, but it was re-arranged and some shots were added before it was edited and released. It's a complete and brilliant film that crosses more than a few genres and is considered one of the best suspense/horror films made in the past 2 decades.

Am I here to amuse you?

[–] colinbakercb1001 8 years ago

I've watched this film about 3 times and everytime i still can't figure out what is going on! its literally as if its being made up as it goes along

[–] nitestar95 9 years ago

The easiest way is to read this synopsis on wiki. But honestly, consider it a warning not to watch Lynch's other films. They're all confusing. He intends it that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulholland_Drive_(film)

[–] timebeetlebrannigan679 9 years ago

It's like Jim Henson's "Labyrinth", except instead of the labyrinth being made of physical trials in the sequence of a maze, it's made out of non-linear loops of traumatic memories, and instead of the Goblin King being romanticized to look like David Bowie, it looks like an actual goblin.

[–] Thespear 9 years ago

I got lost so many times. I know i wasnt watching properly but i don't have time to watch it again.

If you weren't 'watching properly' and don't want to watch it again, then don't...that's the whole point of the movie ( to watch it...carefully!)

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are" Nin

[–] Thespear (134) 5 years ago

Test

[–] maycock-andrew 9 years ago

The first two hours are her dream of how she wishes everything was. She wishes she was a successful actress and that the hit she put out on her ex-girlfriend failed and she could save her and take care of her. Then she wakes up and the last half-hour shows everything in her life that influenced the dream. She's a failed actress and her girlfriend dumped her and got movie roles by sleeping with the director, so she put a hit out on her. The blue key on the table shows that the hit was complete and she feels so guilty she kills herself.

[–] pelegirl5284 8 years ago

Damn. That's basically the best synopsis/summary I've seen thus far. Most people end up making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Sugar and Cornflakes,
Alexis A.

[–] mihaiteodorofficial 8 years ago

https://media.giphy.com/media/1Z02vuppxP1Pa/giphy.gif

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] duongdogg 8 years ago

It is more of a parallel universe, guilt and she was clearly mental. The hollywood dream is dead. People come there for the glitz and glamour but end up selling themselves for sex, waitressing and stuff. She was jealous of her friend too but also loved her.

[–] BelleCBelle 8 years ago

👍

"...question is why you won't come with me." "I don't have a passport." "What are you, American?"

[–] tvlover1961 8 years ago

Oh, now I get it. I was following it until about the last 30 minutes. Then I was like, wow this just got weird. I figured she was kind of a nut.

[–] NorthernLad (472) 8 years ago

Thank you! I think that makes a little more sense now. I just watched this movie and was left with a huge WTF did I just watch!

[–] Cornelia123 (784) 8 years ago

Yes that was the correct explanation. Glad it all makes sense now. It's the kind of film you enjoy more second time around.

[–] db20db (17297) 6 years ago

I agree, this definitely makes the most sense.

What also reinforces this theory is when her neighbor who woke her mentions that a couple of detectives had been there looking for her.

[–] halomaniac88 (1736) 6 years ago

bingo

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

The story is too vague for most people to figure out and that is not an advantage.

I gave up on it once. Then I started it again. One good thing is that I have finally realized that Naomi Watts is a great actress.

[–] artistathome 9 years ago

Once I read up on it and knew it was a failed tv pilot, then I lost interest in trying to figure it out.
Lynch makes these movies that are so obscure and strange and then says I like it when no one can figure my movie.

But he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies. That is why he can't explain it, it doesn't mean anything to him either/

You see he intended it to be a tv show that he would let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week.

But when he couldn't convince the producers to go along with his crazy idea, he took what he had filmed and stuck more scenes in it and said this is a movie.

The truth is, the viewer is the one who gives this movie any kind of realism or sense at all!😞

It for sure is not the writer nor the director.

The plot:
The simplest way to make sense is to read up on some other people's ideas and then form your own. you won't be wrong as there is NO wrong or right.

Once you know that the beginning is a dream, and Betty is a character in Diane's dream, you can kind of follow what is happening.

Everything in the beginning is Diane's dream of a perfect life. She really did win that dance contest and her grandparents watched her win it. She got a chance to go to Hollywood because her aunt is in the movie biz and lets her have the apt. (It is also implied that Diane actually inherited 50,000 from her aunt and that the aunt died leaving the apt to Betty.)

Betty/Diane's dream of success gets derailed by Camilla getting the part Diane wanted. Camilla slept with the director but Betty had the talent. From then on, it is a series of disappointments for Diane(Betty). (Diane was not the supreme actress tho, that she dreams Betty is)

\ you know the audition is a dream because of the way it is handled. They are in a tiny room and too many people are there watching. They are sooooo solicitous of her. That is not reality in Hollywood. She should have been taped for future watching at the very least.
And there would not have 5 extra people there. Those extra people could have watched a tape of her later.

Supposedly, the last 1/3 or so is reality & can also help u make sense of it if you ever have the time to spare to watch again.
Basically, the death of Diane is shown way too early. Her death comes at the end of course.

But you could also say that the entire dream takes place in the few minutes before her consciousness is gone after she shoots herself.
Kind of like the other movie Watts was in called Stay.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

"Once I read up on it and knew it was a failed tv pilot, then I lost interest in trying to figure it out."

Unfortunately many people see this as a negative. Lynch has stated that the film evolving out of a TV show into a “feature film” was a wonderful serendipitous thing and what it always “wanted to be“. This relates to the most likely deep meaning of the film as having developed from a small screen commercial pilot for a “broken up” TV series into a complete singular beautiful meaningful work on the “big screen“ (and finding “happiness“)!

But he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies. That is why he can't explain it, it doesn't mean anything to him either/

Lynch has stated that his explaining the film would putrefy the experience. Likely not only for the viewer but for Lynch and his own artistic vision. I tend to agree.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

I have learned to avoid shows (like Lost) that don't have a definition or focus, in other words that can go wherever the writers decide to go. Sometimes shows go in new directions just because the writers are unable to write something that conforms to the original definition or theme or whatever.

In other words, "let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week" is definitely not what I am interested in.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 9 years ago

I have learned to avoid shows (like Lost) that don't have a definition or focus

Lost and Mulholland Dr. are highly focused. You just have to know what to look for. Roger Ebert hated Mulholland Dr. the first time he saw it. But when someone directed him toward the proper way to see it, he reconsidered his review and hailed it as a masterpiece.

You get what you need to understand the ending of Lost from the first few episodes. And you get what you need to understand Mulholland Dr. from the first 20 minutes.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

I apologize for not knowing how to say what I mean to say, but Lost absolutely is the type of show I am trying to say it is. Stop trying to make what I am saying wrong and start trying to understand what I am trying to say.

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

Roger Ebert hated Mulholland Dr. the first time he saw it. But when someone directed him toward the proper way to see it, he reconsidered his review and hailed it as a masterpiece.

Do you have a source for this? Although not wholly appreciative of some of Lynch's earlier works (I'm thinking specifically of his notorious one-star appraisal of Blue Velvet) I'm fairly certain Ebert was raving about Mulholland Dr. from the beginning.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

Do you have a source for this? Although not wholly appreciative of some of Lynch's earlier works (I'm thinking specifically of his notorious one-star appraisal of Blue Velvet) I'm fairly certain Ebert was raving about Mulholland Dr. from the beginning.

It was something I remembered from a while back. But after a few minutes of googling, I can't find the reference. So perhaps I've remembered wrong. If I come across the reference, I'll post back here.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

I think Bsharp DOES remember wrong here, considering that Ebert's first (4-star) review dates from October the 12th 2001, the very week MD was first released in the USA. Of course, the funny thing is, he sees no logic to it whatsoever.

Actually, the ONLY Lynch movie before MD he appreciated at all, was The Straight Story; no other thing Lynch ever did scored higher than 2/4 with him (it is unknown if he ever saw Eraserhead).

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I don't watch serials either (I don't watch any TV shows) and have only seen one episode of Twin Peaks many years ago. However MD is a complete work that can be understood as a logical and meaningful artistic portrayal using symbolism and metaphor that has more to do with Lynch's interest and advocacy of Transcendental Meditation (See "The David Lynch Foundation")than a physical world "reality", that most viewers seem satisfied to accept. Lynch has always been more interested in depicting the world that exists inside the mind rather than the "illusion" of the physical world. It can take a lot of effort and I completely understand that many viewers will not want to invest the time or may never discover a path to viewing inner layers the film can depict. The explanation you provided in a previous post is a popular one but I have always found unresolved. That view remains within the physical material world and does not delve into the deeper regions that can be discovered. It remains a fun experience for me that has provided a path to better understand my own mind.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

Some movies and songs are intentionally vague. Some people enjoy developing their own opinion of the meaning and discussing them. The problem is that most people that enjoy discussing them tend to insist their interpretation is correct, I am not interested in participating in that. To the extent that this movie is vague, I do not enjoy it.

It might be different if people could agree to disagree and that there are multiple possible interpretations but even then I am unlikely to participate in the discussions.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 9 years ago

I think I understand now, Sam. Your second post was clearer than your first.

You do not like works of art which are deliberately left open for discussion as to its meaning.

If this is the case, then Mulholland Dr. and all other David Lynch movies are definitely not for you. I don't even understand why you are here discussing what you hate discussing.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

Ye, art is highly subjective. Some people enjoy paintings very much that others consider to be gross.

I replied here because someone asked "Can someone explain the whole movie to me?". Then artistathome replied to my comment saying "Lynch makes these movies that are so obscure and strange" and likes it like that and saying "he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies" and "he intended it to be a tv show that he would let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week". My reply to that was that I don't like shows like that. Then you replied by saying the movie is focused. If you think it is focused then reply to artistathome.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 9 years ago

If you think it is focused then reply to artistathome

Okay.

Hey aritathome! This movie has focus if you focus on the right things.

Notice the scene before the credits where someone seems to be falling asleep on a bed with burgundy sheets and a green blanket. Do we see this bed again? Perhaps when someone is waking up?

Notice the diner scene. Dan tells Herb about a recurring dream in which he becomes scared, Herb stands by the counter of Winkies and there is a strange man behind the restaurant. What happens next?

Dan becomes scared. Herb is standing by the counter. They go behind Winkies and see a strange man. What conclusion can we draw from this? (hint: the dream is recurring).;

Add a few Wizard Of Oz references and the movie shifts from blurry to in focus. In Wizard of Oz we know it is Dorothy dreaming but who is dreaming this movie? Should be mostly in focus now...

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

Hmm ....I thought question teaching or whatever it's called violated the board's neutrality protocol. at least, that is how it was circa 2008 when a poster called Bernie_Elms used to do it, and was routinely attacked by some who didn't agree with his teachings.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

I don't know what "question teaching" or "board's neutrality protocol" mean.

The main thing IMDB cares about is not violating the law and not costing them (IMDB) money. They don't want profanity and such as that. Instead of speculating, you should read their policies.

People attack others every day in these discussions. I assume IMDB does not want to pay to moderate personal attacks. It is however very difficult to have a worthwhile discussion, it is much more likely that we will be attacked than have a worthwhile discussion. If they were to moderate personal attacks then they would lose some people and gain others.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

Teaching others by asking them questions to make them come up with the answers on their own, rather than lecturing.

Many of the PC police have repeatedly claimed the movie is open to personal interpretation per Lynch's intention. Baiting someone else towards your personal interpretation violates this understanding.

This board used to be a battlefield and many have fallen.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

People have been using terms in ways different from their original definition. I think what you are trying to say is very different from what I would guess what you mean. I won't try to figure it out.

For example if PC means Politically Correct then there is no politics here. The term was a bad term from the beginning.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

No, you are replying to me, not aritathome. He or she is not likely to see your reply. If you reply to him or her then they will get a notification and I would not.

[–] Cookie.L.A. (2117) 7 years ago

<< [Lynch] himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies. That is why he can't explain it...he intended it to be a tv show that he would let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week...But when he couldn't convince the producers to go along with his crazy idea, he took what he had filmed and stuck more scenes in it and said this is a movie. The truth is, the viewer is the one who gives this movie any kind of realism or sense at all! >>

I basically agree with this...the film is a mishmash and sort of made by accident, tho it does have a certain kind of power and some excellent things in it. Naomi Watts' performance is superb.

If Mr. Lynch made a straightforward film, his fans would be decimated, because they're kind of exclusive-minded conspiracy theorists. They equate ambiguity with depth.

I saw this film initially at a screening before it was released, and it first strikes you as a chaotic, though sometimes mesmerizing, mess. Years later I watched it again (several times) being tipped off as to the majority of the film being a dream (or dying fantasy) that contrasts with the reality of Betty's sad life that we see at the end...and the film became much more resonant for me.

It's very much a one-of-a-kind. I think there's a real arrogance to this type of storytelling (which assumes we'll care enough to sit through multiple viewings)...but, that's this particular filmmaker for you. That's his shtick.
.

[–] modica (4169) 6 years ago

Yes, but The Straight story was pretty straightforward.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I was just looking back at some of the history of recent posts on this thread and just felt like writing something.

"The story is too vague for most people to figure out..."

Pehaps "vague" is the wrong term but think I understand what you mean. I might prefer "mysterious", "puzzling" or "perplexing". Vague suggests "ill-defined".

"...and that is not an advantage."

The viewer's involvement in the mystery is an integral part of Lynch's artistic vision (IMO). No "advantage" can be provided.

You were replying to a post by dropkick. I am afraid I find the dropkick POV too complex for my tastes and not certain what the point (meaning/moral) would be. I expect people generally find most alternative perspectives (including mine) difficult to fully grasp.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

The term "ill-defined" is slightly derogatory and implies unintentional; in other words, a mistake. Vague can be either intentional or unintentional.

There are two types of mysteries.

Some mysteries, as in crime mysteries, have a solution at the end.

Other mysteries are not important to the story.

Many (I think most) people are irritated when something is reasonably relevant to the story yet never explained. The words "puzzling" and "perplexing" are also like that type of mystery.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I apologize if you found my comment derogatory. It was unintended.

Vague:1.of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear:
"many patients suffer vague symptoms"

synonyms: indistinct · indefinite · indeterminate · unclear ·ill-defined
[more]

•thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way:
"he had been very vague about his activities"

My point is that I eventually found MD certain, definite, clear and focused etc. it is remarkably rich and detailed. That others are often unable is near the heart of what Lynch has portrayed. Perhaps it was vague to me at one time but no longer.

"Many (I think most) people are irritated..."

This is related to the negativity we experience as a darker side of human nature. You are experiencing what Lynch believes and portrays in MD. Lynch believes there are paths that both "lead to" and "lead to eliminating" much of that negativity. As in the film, most people never are able to "see" this. It is not necessary to believe it but to have some basic understanding what Lynch believes to be important in his own personal life. This might help viewers to become aware of the deeper meaning that can be discovered within the film.

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

You can try to tell people they should like it but those of us that don't like it will just ignore you.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

a call-out. Nice...

What is the point of examining in excruciating detail the inner- mental workings of an unseen protagonist or a character that we see for 20 minutes with no redeeming qualities?

With the latter view, only the final 20 mins of the movie would serve any real purpose.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I am not certain what you mean.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

You're a WiT person.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

What does WiT mean?

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

Is that "Woman in Trouble"? I was trying to recall because I think I had seen the abbreviation previously. I do not consider my self WiT if that is what it means. I might consider my POV as "tUF" but have never thought to give it a name!

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

I've seen your refer to a 'protagonist' whose mental workings are driving the narratives. Where is this person, floating in the ether or is she on screen (M.George?)

Anyway, yeah unified field. Or unified lynch possibly. He could be the one.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I accept that the POV I offer does not seem to resonate with others. I find it so fulfilling I presume it is due to my own inability to discuss it satisfactorily (delusion?). Lets see where this goes.

I do not interpret as a literal dream/reality but envision all of the characters as "character-istics" interacting within a symbolic subconscious mental landscape. I have written about Sylvia North (vs Sylvia "West" in the film Sylvia)being an unseen representative of the mental depiction but I really see it more as reflecting the universal viewers mind. North (Canada) can be interpreted as up...as in relation to "the head" being up. Southern California would be "downwards" in deeper regions of the mind. Aunt Ruth being in Canada would be representing a "conscious" waking state of mind largely unaware of the subconscious state that we experience in the film.

You mention Melissa George. I will offer an interpretation. She is identified as "Camilla Rhodes" as is Laura Herring later. This is simply symbolically a wrong "path" (Road/Rhodes/path) for Adam and for Betty/Diane. It is the SAME bad path (same names) that lead to a negative outcome. The unseen character has via Adam "character" chosen Camilla Rhodes (bad path) but so has Betty. But Betty and Adam (and all) make up the "character" of the unseen mind.

My understanding of the Unified Field (as it relates to meditation) derives directly from Lynch’s own description of “transcending through layers of consciousness“ to reach a point of pure consciousness and experience “bliss“. This is Lynch’s vision and I am able to relate it to MD by interpreting what I see contained within the film. I began to relate the experience to the Unified Field after reading Lynch’s description when in the process of exploring the film. My experience has been like a journey as I “transcended” through various POV’s that originally sought a physical real world solution but increasingly evolved into non-physical inner world understanding. The explanations I originally attempted to fit all required making up some events outside the film and were for me unsatisfactory. This is also how other explanations feel to me. I tend to perceive MD as involving the viewer in an artistic depiction of physical world “illusion” and inner mental world “reality. Most explanations I have read seek to create unseen events outside of the actual film that I have come to associate with the depiction of the “illusion“. I read an interview in which Lynch spoke of making a negative in order to show a positive. That is kind of how I see MD. Lynch shows us the confusion, ignorance and suffering in order to illustrate the “bliss”.

Lynch shows us desire (Hollywood/Rita/Jewels/Wealth/Power) leading to suffering and negativity. It is easy to see with Diane but more confusing with Betty. But Betty deviates from her path and succumbs to being led by “desire” to disappear. This relates to our human nature seeking to (ignorantly) repeatedly satisfy “desire” in the physical world and remain unaware of how to eliminate the internal negativity.

It can be perceived as a “dream/reality” but the “reality” requires viewers to make certain accommodations. The very first is the lighting in the “awakening” scene that is not based on “reality” and is artistic symbolism intended to be interpreted using the “language” of the film.

I have found this POV to have a meaningful moral message regarding the self abuse we do to ourselves that lead to negativity (suffering/hate/fear/anger/selfishness/pain/obsession/greed etc.). I further believe it relates very strongly to the artist own known beliefs and experiences. I am aware viewers here object to explanations that claim to be what Lynch intended but this perspective is fulfilling if completely understood. I struggle at some levels but feel certain it is a good path. I have found it remarkably fun and simple on most levels once beginning to explore it as an inner mental landscape (perhaps like a viewer might imagine the Wizard of OZ?).

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

I/m sure some of the Buddhist undertones are there. As well as the unified field.

I'm just not sure they are what drive the story. There is framework and symmetry.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

For me it is an artistic allegorical portrayal of philosophical concepts. I am not a film/literary student and may not understand what constitutes "framework/symmetry" as applied to cinema but this film spoke to me in ways I could not have imagined as I explored it. It has opened my eyes and improved my own life in unexpectedly positive ways. I hadn't given it much thought but perhaps the idea that drives the story for me is...seeing the film (world/life/ourselves) as we think/want to see it as opposed to how it (film/world/life) "is". I can remain "inside" the film ("as film is")and find a message that relates to our universal human experience. Perhaps that is the "framework"? I find the film relates to important philosophical concepts which raises the film above an engaging puzzle/entertainment or the story of an individual. It is done in a remarkably creative way that involves each viewer as an integral element of the total artistic expression. Of course the film can be perceived in other ways but they just became less fulfilling for me once I began to discover (enlightened to) this path. I still struggle on some matters but have continued to gain further understanding.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

There's nothing wrong with getting philosophical messages out of the movies, but that doesn't preclude a logical framework such as a mobius strip or a film within a film...

Here's an example of I'm looking at:

Fact: Rita sleeping on the Havenhurst bed is a mirror image of the blonde girl sleeping in SB #17.

Implication: Brunette is the dreaming host of Adam's story. Blonde is the dreaming host of Betty's story.

Since the brunette is dreaming inside of Blonde's dream (she's on the same level as Betty), the blonde's dream is superimposed over the brunette's dream.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I find many explanations difficult to comprehend and I have equal difficulty explaining my own.

Yes you enjoy exploring and perceiving as a “film within a film“. MD is a film and there is a film being made. I think viewers can legitimacy see what they want. I believe there exists a means to see this as symbolic allegory that can become a complete and unified whole. This is largely driven by my impression of Lynch and his work. Metaphor is how he directs, speaks and writes so I can logically presume he will make use of this in his creative artistry.

Symbolically we all have our own film inside our own heads. MD as a real (reel) film uses light to be reflected into our heads and seems an artistic representation of our own inner “reality” when repeatedly experiencing negativity. Understanding the film can (symbolically) relieve the negativity. I believe the underlying message is what matters for me in MD.

“Fact: Rita sleeping on the Havenhurst bed is a mirror image of the blonde girl sleeping in SB #17.

Implication: Brunette is the dreaming host of Adam's story. Blonde is the dreaming host of Betty's story.

Since the brunette is dreaming inside of Blonde's dream (she's on the same level as Betty), the blonde's dream is superimposed over the brunette's dream.”

I am sorry (and I do not mean to demean your interpretation), I have read this before but I still have no idea what you mean. Are you certain they are even dreaming? Personally, I am unable to see why dreams would be superimposed since it is something I would associate with fantasy. Neither am I aware of anything to suggest this is something Lynch has a strong interest in portraying. Is there an idea or meaningful point to these two stories that has some meaning? An empty framework or mobius strip(?) by themselves might seem like an appealing intellectual exercise but… Is there something I am missing? I would be disappointed if Lynch were simply creating a puzzle or some meaningless activity. The “implication” and associations seem tenuous but you would have a better understanding.

Laura is actually shown in the film sleeping prior to Dan and Herb at Winkies and the chain call and awakes afterwards. I can use the sequencing to interpret this to have observable implications regarding Winkies and chaincall. I am unaware of any similar “bracketing” to suggest this for BiB.

I admit this BiB is one that I still struggle on but feel have a reasonable interpretation. I do see these characters you mention as related to each other but interpret things differently. What I see is that they each face “opposite directions” and are not shown together except by some photoshop manipiulation not provided by Lynch. It may be a mirror image or perhaps a negative or opposite image but the same can be said about Diane in bed too or the corpse.

Cowboy speaks the line “Hey pretty girl” at the same time that we see the BiB so he is speaking to HER. Since she is not Naomi nor Laura she can be presumed to be someone (something) else. Then we see Cowboy smiling then we see the corpse. This can suggest the “unseen character” (of which Cowboy and all others are a part of) had expected to awaken as a happy camper but it has not happened. Then an unsmiling Cowboy closes the door (disappointed-not happy) and the fade from black as Diane awakens. It is worth noting that all of the transitions to this point are fade to/from black. The scene where Diane awakens is done with lighting that comes from inside rising upwards from her feet before the light through the window is visible, a technique to further suggest a symbolic “unreal/unenlightening“ that is coming from a closed and darkened place rather that the “light of day“. I might interpret the BiB as a “good” character(istic) that does not “awaken” due to the bad choices made previously. Instead “something bad” has happened and “Diane” has been “created“. From my POV, choices made will determine “how life will be”. This is noted as Adam says the line “Camilla and I are going to BE…” at the dinner party. Note we expect him to say “married” but that is not what we hear in the film. Selfishness and materialism, heartless self-centeredness are going to “BE” and represented by the evolution of Camilla and Adam (who has chosen the Camilla Road=Path=Rhodes. The result of bad choices (path=road=Rhodes) born of desire and ignorance.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

What I see is that they each face “opposite directions” and are not shown together except by some photoshop manipiulation not provided by Lynch. It may be a mirror image or perhaps a negative or opposite image but the same can be said about Diane in bed too or the corpse.

LOL it goes BiB ---> corpse ---> Diane
They are mirror opposites of Rita lying on the bed. You're saying Diane is on Rita's level and not Bib?

Cowboy speaks the line “Hey pretty girl” at the same time that we see the BiB so he is speaking to HER.

Correct.

Since she is not Naomi nor Laura she can be presumed to be someone (something) else. Then we see Cowboy smiling then we see the corpse. This can suggest the “unseen character” (of which Cowboy and all others are a part of) had expected to awaken as a happy camper but it has not happened. Then an unsmiling Cowboy closes the door (disappointed-not happy) and the fade from black as Diane awakens.

Wait. We know the Cowboy is one of the forces that is pushing Adam to cast the girl who is called 'pretty' at the board room meeting. We see her later at the party shortly before, you guessed it, the Cowboy passes by. So wouldn't the logical choice for BiB be Melissa George (or the unnamed character she's playing?)

Another possibility is that there's a rotation of blondes that take the role. George is her in the cycle we see. Lori Heuring was her previously. Maybe Riffel is next. Or Crider. Something like that.

Each cycle (we might be on #3 because Dan talks about a dream he's already had twice) Adam is given a new girl he must select and Luigi spits out the next espresso on the list.

I'm of the opinion that Diane's story is repeating over and over again. The actress playing her goes to sleep, is killed, enters bardo, opens the box and leaves the story, replaced by the next in line, who by helping the previous results in Diane waking up in the same bummer story over and over.

The cycle only breaks when Diane avoids the hit. Something like that. No?

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

“We know the Cowboy is one of the forces that is pushing Adam to cast the girl who is called 'pretty' at the board room meeting. We see her later at the party shortly before, you guessed it, the Cowboy passes by. So wouldn't the logical choice for BiB be Melissa George (or the unnamed character she's playing?)”

IMO Cowboy is simply a neutral conduit that is used by the mind to present the choices to be made. No one is pushing but the unseen mind.
I see the Castligiane’s as symbols of the powerful forces that exist within the (unseen) human psyche that push “us” to make choices that are difficult to resist…having to do with “worldly desire”. We become corralled by our own desires (note the skull, light bulb and canyon (of the mind) all clever mental symbols) We find reasons to justify doing wrong (to ourselves). “We” are “guilty” of “self” abuse to ourselves. Adam is not forced or threatened. In this case “desire” for worldly possessions like a exclusive house, jewels, Rolls Royce etc. The “Adam characteristic” gives up control (direction) and chooses a bad “Rhode(s)”=path=road=choice and is shown a heartless self-centered jerk. It is the same Rhodes name (both Camilla’s) but simply a different “bad” path that leads to suffering negativity. I perceive the unseen character as making the wrong life choices via the mental manifestations represented by the characters. The sequence of events occurs as Adam chooses Blonde Camilla Rhodes and then Betty hurriedly leaves the audition not to connect with the Adam character but instead chooses her physical desire. These are the (bad) choices we see that result in the "direction" of what life will “be”.

“So wouldn't the logical choice for BiB be Melissa George (or the unnamed character she's playing?)”

Lyssie Powell is BiB. Adam chose a bad Rhode and Betty chose another bad Rhode=road=path=choice. The names are the same= bad roads/Rhodes)

“I'm of the opinion that Diane's story is repeating over and over again.”

We kind of agree here but the concept for me is that the “mind” never cares (or understands or can resist) that the “Rhode” to happiness is not a “Mulholland Drive” of worldly self-centered desire but can only be found “within”. The outer world is “illusion” while the inner world is “reality”. The character constantly repeats the same mistakes and never achieves the intended “peace” represented by Irene and companion, BiB(?), and perhaps Blue Hair. The first part of the film is what we expect…the second is the result of choices made in the previous part.

Since I see this all as a symbolic moral lesson there is no need to create additional material outside of the film. It is a complete and connected artwork.

“The cycle only breaks when Diane avoids the hit. Something like that. No?”

I try to avoid creating anything outside of the film. It is the viewers own preconceptions that we mistakenly rely on instead of what we are actually seeing in the film. There is nothing in the film that actually refers to a “hit” initiated by Joe or Diane other that the viewers assumptions. I do not associate Camilla’s ride in the limo at the beginning with Joe or Diane. I see her as a symbol of desire that floats into the mind (Havenhuest) after a previous cycle (crash) on MD. She waits outside the “locked entrance” at Havenhurst and sneaks in although perhaps with the knowledge of the “mind” having failed to keep the desire out. There are many suggestions that the mind subconsciously is aware what is occurring but unwilling to take actions to change the behavior.

Had Betty/Adam chosen to connect with each other (themselves), the result can be presumed to have been “better“ to find “happiness” or “love” (of self). Instead Adam submits to the force (Camilla Rhodes/path) Betty follows desire (Camilla Rhodes/path) and is lost. Note the music connecting Betty’s arrival at the studio, the “love” scene, walking up the path to the dinner and the end as she escapes back to an illusion.

[–] dropkick23 9 years ago

IMO Cowboy is simply a neutral conduit that is used by the mind to present the choices to be made. No one is pushing but the unseen mind.

I try to avoid creating anything outside of the film.



[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

I presume you are suggesting I am "outside" of the film. It seems a difficult concept for others to grasp but I seem naturally to perceive things symbolically. This does not come naturally to my wife so I realize others see the world differently. My screen name actually refers to my 1956 gold top Les Paul guitar I bought at a jewelry store in 1968. It symbolizes much of my life and has meaning to me immeasurably beyond any monetary value. Well it's okay if you don't...

I attempt to assign a specific connective interpretation on what I see actually contained within the film's "existence". Cowboy is in the film speaking his lines in composed shots with various props that can be given interpretations that work in a unified way within a theme for the entire film. This is very different than creating any outside imagined events never mentioned or shown at all in the film such as a "hit" or "suicide" that viewers typically atttempt. Cowboy does not threaten or force. He simply says (non-threatening) "I WANT YOU TO (do something). He speaks about "The good life" to suggest material worldly desire (desire=powerful forces impossible to satisfy...like always spitting out the worlds finest cappicino). He than speaks of doing "good". The "good" life can be interpreted as inner bliss/compassion/humanity/love/peace etc. Cowboy says to the "director" let someone (something) else (your desire/greed) take control and do the "driving" of life ("you drive me wild" etc.) BUT if you "DO GOOD"...(love/peace/"inner stardom"/enlightenment).

Can you see the difference of interpreting something "real" (reel?) as opposed to imagining or creating something "outside"? I "interpret" the outside imagined events as viewers "illusions" corresponding to the seeking solutions (happiness) in the physical material world rather than "within". Not SEEING the world (film) as it "IS".

When Cowboy opens the door to speak to BiB he is speaking (happily) to the "different character" (Lyssie Powell) that can be interpreted as the "character" Betty did not evolve to become (although hoped/expected to). (See me one more time="done good" as we SEE BiB).(Then we SEE a corpse and unsmiling Cowboy...See me two more time="done bad"...self-centered "the good life" of "Mulholland Drive"). Recall that I interpret ALL characters as mental manifestations of inner actions of one symbolic universal mind (Betty=Joe=Adam=Ed etc). Betty/Diane (et al) remains lost (again) in an inner world of suffering due to the wrong choices(ignorance) made by following a physical desire (Rita/Camilla Rhodes=road=path=choice). Her "love" was spoken as "I'm "IN" love with you" (suggesting obsessive self centered) as opposed to "I LOVE you" (real LOVE for the OTHER (self)). The music during the first sex scene relates/connects to three other "desire" scenes. Once we realize where desire "leads" in the film (suffering/negativity) we can begin feel the powerful sadness the that music can convey. "She" (we) did not transform into a better "character(istic)" represented by BiB. If she/he had done "good" (to herself/ourselves/myself)and connected with "Adam" (mental abstraction character) the (inner) life would have changed for the better (love/happiness/stardom of positive "goodness" to inner soul) and awoken as a new better character (become a new (different)and better person) (BiB). (Note how a corpse is shown after BiB...death of the "dream of finding happiness" and a life still remaining within a negative/suffering (subconscious/mental) world.)

A few other (of many) interpretations inside the film...Note how Betty's face looks "towards Rita" (desire)as they lay in bed. Rita looks upwards and not towards Betty. Notice how it is Rita's hand wrapping around Betty's suggesting Rita (desire) is now in control (within desires grip) as Betty than allows her desire to lead her. These are images and actions that can be connected and interpreted to show the character is becoming "lost" to "desire". Notice how Laura Herring's character is connected to the chain call and the phone call to Diane. All of this is inside the film. Read the script from the pilot as Lynch describes the meeting of the eyes between Betty and Adam. Listen to the words of the songs being sung as they connect and connect them to the actions on the screen.

These elements are all within the film to be interpreted and understood to provide a suportable/logical/meaningful "enlightenment" that is further strongly related to the artists own personal life philosophy. This can be thought of as using the "language" of the film to help understand it.

[–] oldgoldtop 9 years ago

dropkick,
I wanted to add...
Lynch shows us how the same lines can be interpreted in different ways. The first reading of the script by Betty and Rita might be imagined as the typical way those lines might be interpreted. The second time by Betty at the audition we see a very different interpretation that could be somewhat unsettling for viewers. I believe this to be a "pointer" for the viewer to do the same in other places as I have described in the previous reply with Cowboy. But one of my favorites is the exchange between Betty and Rita as they are about to have the first sexual encounter (Havenhurst). My capitalization for interpretive purposes...

Rita:"Thank you Betty".
Betty; "It's NOTHING"
Rita: "No, I mean thank you for EVERYTHING"
Betty: "Your welcome"
Rita:"GOOD NIGHT, SWEET Betty"

Rita kisses Betty (fore)"HEAD".

I left out some filler but the idea that Betty says its "nothing" (like bum drops bag?) but has given "everything" (inner happiness) to Rita (Rita/Camilla Rhodes=desire/bad road/path/choice) and the line "good night sweet Betty" takes on a "dark" meaning as "sweet Betty is about to be gone/lost.

[–] RJBurke1942 8 years ago

Well ... Flanneletteshirt:

I've read two pages of the replies here, none of which have provided much in the way of a helpful reply to your query. So, I'll offer my complete answer here (you can read my review also, under the name Roger Burke) which I think will give you closure.

Just understand first that Lynch, in his own words, is obsessed with absurdity in humanity; and he does his utmost to present the absurd things that people do in all his movies. It's the way he presents those absurdities, however, which challenge the viewer.

Lynch has made a trilogy: Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire, in which he explores and shows the absurd things people do when jealousy and rage dominate a personality. And, for all three movies, he starts and ends the movies in similar ways.

For MD, in the opening scene, at the end of the jiving, we see a bed with a red pillow and we hear heavy, sad breathing as the pillow gets closer and closer - at this point we, the viewers, are that person slowly descending to that pillow - which eventually dissolves to the street sign for Mulholland Drive, and the story starts. Okay - cut to the end: we see that red pillow again as distraught Naomi Watts buries her face in the pillow, puts the gun in her mouth and we hear the bang. As she dies, her recent life flashes through her persona, and, as she dies, she tries to rationalize all that has happened because of what she did to herself and others. The story starts. Fade to black. End.

All of the story is in her mind as she dies. So, in a similar manner as in Jacob's Ladder and Donnie Darko, Lynch created a movie which shows the tortured mind of a person recalling her past - her sordid past - as she dies.

Lost Highway and Inland Empire use that same opening and closing techniques to show their respective stories. If you haven't seen them, I'd suggest you should.

I've seen an awful lot of movies and a lot of awful movies...

[–] Od1n 8 years ago

As she dies, her recent life flashes through her persona, and, as she dies, she tries to rationalize all that has happened because of what she did to herself and others.

Disagree. We see glimpses from her real life, and maybe exactly that her mind recalled seconds after committing suicide, but the biggest part of the movie is her dreams with backstory scenes.

BTW I would say that Lynch's movies, after you used to his cinematograph style, are quite simple and completely logical.

[–] Daddy_Juice 8 years ago

This is the girl.