MovieChat Forums > Zeekmoont > Replies
Zeekmoont's Replies
There is some evidence that the dreamer is a man. In the following clip Dan is telling his friend, Herb, about a dream he has been having.
https://ulozto.net/file/MapeZMgLqSub/mulholland-dr-dan-herb-mp4
"There's a MAN...in back of this place. He's the one who's doing it. I can see him through the wall. I can see his face. I hope that I never see that face EVER outside of the dream. That's it."
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/df/d6/r4NGU9Zg_t.jpg
"So, you came to see if he's out there."
Ironically, by bringing Herb to Winkie's and telling him about his dream, Dan actually makes his own nightmare come true. Dan realizes what's going to happen, the moment he see's Herb standing by the cash register, just like in Dan's dream.
Judging from what I have just shown you, we (the viewers) appear to be standing in someone else's shoes, and we are seeing whatever he/she is seeing. In regards to who the voyeur is, there are least two intepretations.
1) The voyeur is some kind of ghost. A wandering spirit could see his/her own dead body, but the two death scenes don't match precisely. The corpse in Apartment 17 did not have a gun, whereas Diane shot herself in the mouth. We could have, for example, a ghost that drives people so mad that they kill themselves.
https://ulozto.net/file/1kOV5ow1QbPk/mulholland-dr-louise-bonner-mp4
2) The voyeur is someone who is dreaming, which is suggested early in the movie when the dreamer appears to be putting his her/head on a pillow. Presumably, the dreamer identifies in some way with the people he/she is looking at. The dreamer could be an elderly woman (we see alot of images from the 40's and 50's), and Betty/Rita could reflect her younger days. The girls could be friends or relatives, or they could simply be two imaginary women altogether. It is also possible that the dreamer is a man who is dreaming that he is a woman. Although I have no recollection of ever seeing myself in a dream, many years ago, I did dream I was a woman.
My main point is that although we can see what the dreamer sees, we don't necessarily see who the dreamer is. Here is a clip showing Betty & Rita going into Club Silencio.
https://ulozto.net/file/T7JVGsc99Rhc/mulholland-dr-entrance-to-club-silencio-mp4
Do you get the creepy feeling that the girls are being watched? Does it seem like someone is rushing to get in the door at the same time the girls go in? That anonymous PRESENCE is the dreamer (or if you prefer the wandering spirit of the corpse in apartment 17). Again, you don't actually see who is dreaming, you just see what the dreamer sees. This is called POV (point of view). If Lynch had filmed Diane's suicide in POV, we would not have seen Diane in the field of view. Instead, Lynch would have shown us a hand reach into a draw and pull out a gun. We would see the gun pointing at us, followed by a bright flash and a loud kaboom! But, that's not what Lynch showed us.
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/60/04/5xlx0FLM_t.png
You may just be able to notice something shiny near Diane's mouth. Apparently, that is gun she used to shoot herself with. If we compare this to the corpse we see in Apartment 17, its not a perfect match. The location matches, but the corpse does not have a gun.
So, you still think it's Diane's dream? I disagree. When we dream we often see people we know, such as friends and relatives. Sometimes we see perfect strangers. But, when is the last time you saw yourself in a dream? In my opinion, we can see what the dreamer sees, but we can't actually see the dreamer. I have a few clips to illustrate this point. The first clip shows the moment when the dream begins, or at least the moment when the dreamer falls asleep. This occurs right after the opening scene with the dancers.
https://ulozto.net/file/2Ct0bWZkRZrr/mulholland-dr-bed-mp4
At first the picture is blurred. Gradually, we can make out what looks to be a bed with some rosé sheets and green blankets. We hear some heavy breathing, and we get the sense that someone is falling into the bed, but we do not see WHO is in the bed. In my opinion, this scene tells us that everything we see in the film is a dream. That is, whoever is dreaming is still dreaming when, later in the film, Betty & Rita see a corpse in apartment 17, Sierra Bonita. That is, the dreamer is dreaming about Betty & Rita sneaking into apartment 17 and discovering a corpse. Notice that the linens are the same ones we saw at the beginning of the film.
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/54/c0/fQ25IBgu_t.jpg
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/70/5b/kAuOqjKO_t.png
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/b0/e3/e3K17rGP_t.png
The corpse appears to be a female, but we can't tell who she is. But, how can a dead person be dreaming? There are two possible interpretations.
1) The dreamer is not actually dead. She is simply dreaming that she's dead.
2) The dead woman's soul has left her body and is somehow able to look at her own corpse.
In any case, who are Betty & Rita, and how do they relate to Diane? Later in the film, we will see Diane Selwyn awake from this same bed.
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/c4/a1/VckG6QLt_t.png
Are we witnessing a resurrection, or is someone dreaming that she is Diane Selwyn?
"Do yourself a favor and go do some more google searches before you try to spout off your self proclaimed wisdom anymore."
Why should I do Google searches when I have YOU here? Since you're the expert, why don't help me out? Tell me which Christian groups don't believe that Jesus Christ is God, which ones don't believe in the Gospel, and which ones do not believe in forgiveness?
"Your ignorance right now is beyond redemption."
Like the Jehovah Witnesses say, it's up to God to decide who should and should not be saved. I'm not asking for YOUR forgiveness. And, frankly, if you can't answer my questions, I don't see any reason why I trust your judgement, either.
"If you knew anything about Christianity you would that that not all Christian faiths believe in the trinity"
The Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door in my neighborhood. They don't believe in the Trinity, but they do believe that everything Jesus Christ says and does is God's own will. Just like all Christians, they believe that Jesus Christ made Heaven & Earth. And, since Jesus Christ believes in forgiveness, why don't you? Perhaps it's because you're not a Christian???
In any case, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in eternal suffering. Jehovah either does or doesn't judge you to be worthy of salvation. According to HIS discretion (not yours!!!) Jehovah may or may not choose to resurrect King Henry. If Jehovah does not judge King Henry to be worthy, he will simply stay in his grave. Since Jehovah doesn't torture people, I don't see why the Jehovah's Witnesses would like to punish someone who has been dead for nearly 500 years.
"but apparently you a non-christian think you are someone an authority on Christianity which is pretty fucking funny."
I take it I'm supposed to believe that YOU are THE authority on Christian faith. Fine. So, why don't you tell me which Christian group doesn't believe that Jesus Christ is God? Which one does not believe in the Gospel? Which one does not believe in forgiveness?
The easiest way to make the story more entertaining is to place Anastasia in mortal danger. When Christian takes her into the red room, we should be jumping out of our chairs saying 'No, Anastasia. No! Don't go in there! Don't let that monster hurt you!' But, we aren't the least bit frightened, because we are told from the very beginning that Christian is a nice guy, and we know this is true.
The problem with the whole story is that it's essentially a fairy tale. Not only does Anastasia get to marry Mr. Tall, Dark & Handsome, but he's ridiculously wealthy to boot. Anastasia gets a devoted husband, a family and a dream house in the country. And, with hardly any previous experience she gets a great job as the editor-in-chief of publishing company. In short, Anastasia has everything she desires handed to her on a silver platter.
Compare Anastasia's life to say, Scarlett O'Hara, from Gone with the Wind, and I think you'll see a big difference in terms of how many failures and how much pain & suffering the two heroines have to endure, as well as how hard they have to work in order to succeed. Needless to say, Gone with the Wind does not have a 'and they lived happily ever after' ending. And we both know which movies the critics prefer.
I should add that I am critiquing the entire Fifty Shades series, including Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed.
[quote]In no place does the bible say that the father, son and holy spirit are one and the same. Each is separate but apparently you are following one of the religions that has brainwashed its members to see what is not even in the bible.[/quote]
I am NOT Christian. I don't subscribe to ANY of the world's religions. In my view, Jesus Christ was an ordinary Jew who for some reason thought he had a divine right to rule over Palestine, in fulfillment of such and such a Hebrew prophecy. The Roman's begged to differ, and crucified him. In my view, Jesus Christ didn't actually believe he was God nor did he ever claim to be. The Christians made that false claim decades after his death. I am simply defining Christians as a group of people who believe that Jesus Christ is God. If you believe he was a great prophet (rather than just another wannabe, as I see him) but you don't believe he's God, you're not a Christian. You are either a Muslim or a member of Hebrew sect or possibly another religion. So, you and I are simply arguing over definitions of terms.
"The 10 commandment are the only laws that were directly handed down by god."
So, perhaps it would better to say that you're Jewish? In which case, I take it you believe in 'an eye for an eye.' So, if King Henry were alive today, you and I could debate whether or not he should be put to death or perhaps be dealt with more severely. However, we can't change what happened nearly 500 years ago, only God can do that. I may be a 'dumb ass', but I think there is one thing we can both agree on, YOU ain't God. And, as far as I am concerned YOU can't speak for him!
Let me be quite plain. I don't believe that thousands of years ago the 'volcano god' handed the Torah to Moses on the top of Mount Sinai. I believe a bunch of Rabbis (or the like) sat down one day to decide on a bunch of rules, and they claimed that it was God's law. I don't believe them. I don't believe in sin. I don't believe in Good. I don't believe in Evil. So, what do I believe in?
"TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO FORGIVE DIVINE"
"Are you aware that a men control indirectly the sex of babies????"
Evidently, King Henry didn't know that. Otherwise, history would have been different. In any case, I've always thought that it was just a 'coin toss.' Sometimes the kid comes out a boy, sometimes it's a girl.
"what Jesus said is not the word of God and is at best the word of someone close to god..."
Well, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God, then you're not a Christian. Which is what I said in the first place.
"I think you could probably tag Henry with every fucking commandment several times over."
Well, that much we agree on. But the 10 commandments only state what the cardinal sins are. They don't say anything about what punishment you get if you break them. Lets face it. Neither you or I are God. So, whatever became of Henry after he died is not our concern.
"It was also because of him that many good things happened to England after his reign, including having a daughter who would go on to become one of the most beloved and memorable rulers the island had ever known (Elizabeth I)."
You could add his Protestant reformations (which led to large settlements in the Americas) and even the simple fact that he built a strong navy.
"Henry VIII, while remembered for his cruelty and ridiculous history of 6 wives, is a complicated man."
I don't really think he was very complicated. In fact, he was very easy to understand. If he got what he wanted, he was happy a man. If he didn't get what he wanted, he as angry one. A happy king was a benevolent one. A happy king gave you money, precious gifts, land, and important titles. An angry king lopped off your head, assuming he was in a forgiving mood!
The trouble is, Henry was not easy to please. So, even if you knew the rules (and doubtless everyone did) it was not easy to follow them. If Anne Boelyn had been able to give Henry a male heir, history may well have turned out differently. And the obnoxious comments she made about him didn't help matters much.
[quote]Problem is you will find more dark dastardly rulers in the royal past than you will benevolent ones.[/quote]
Agreed. In fact, I'm still trying to find any ruler in the middle ages or the Renaissance that was benevolent. Can you even mention one? Queen Elizabeth was more compassionate than her father, but I would hardly consider her benevolent. Elizabeth was far more reluctant to execute people than Henry (who in my view was a Machiavellian). Elizabeth kept Mary Queen of Scotts locked up for almost 20 years, before she finally got around to lopping off her head. Elizabeth was also very reluctant to wage war (again unlike her father), but when 'push came to shove' she defeated the Spanish armada in 1588 (with the help of Francis Drake).
[quote]History is full of evil people that did the deathbed request for forgiveness... Frankly that was always my biggest problem with the catholic church, the thought that even some fucker like Hitler could be forgiven.[/quote]
I take it you're not really a Christian.
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Luke 6:37
"Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper,
but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy." Proverbs 28:13
But, if you want to look at it from an atheist's perspective. King Henry has been dead for nearly 500 years. A pile of bones in a tomb can't harm anyone. So, any debate about whether he should or shouldn't be punished is meaningless. The threat of eternal damnation only applies to the living.
The dream ain't over until the witch with a punk hairdo says 'silencio'.
https://thumbs2.imgbox.com/d6/10/FTWDy13j_t.jpg
If you watch the next clip all the way to the end, you'll see her appear. After la Bruja say's the 'magic word', the screen goes black, and, finally, we get to the credits. It's as if SHE is the one who's in control of the spectacle. Since la Bruja 'has the last word', no theory about the film would be complete without some explanation about who she is and what role she plays in the fantasy.
https://ulozto.net/file/NmaFpTs2dkXs/mulholland-dr-suicide-mp4
La Bruja first appears in a balcony in Club Silencio.
https://ulozto.net/file/letQ5loFMG0L/mulholland-dr-in-club-silencio-mp4
It looks as if Betty is experiencing air turbulence on her flight back to Deep River, Ontario. Jacques Lacan would probably have called this experience 'la feminine jouissance', a kind of spiritual orgasm that you share with others. Freud would probably have called the event a 'dreamwork' representation of the 'primal scene'. That is, a dream that's an encrypted reenactment of the day junior walked in the bedroom and saw daddy banging up mommy. Based on what Lynch is showing me, however, I prefer to call it 'The [i]in Utero[/i] Mind Fuck'.
According to your theory, Mulholland Dr. is a self-consoling dream. And, upon awakening, it becomes a terrifying, psychotic reality. But, if all these surreal events are simply the product of Diane's tormented imagination, her disturbing nightmare should end when she dies. So, how can la Bruja appear AFTER Diane commits suicide? Did la Bruja somehow possess Diane's mind and drive her insane? Remember that argument that Adam had with the Mafia at Ryan Entertainment?
Adam - "Hey, that girl is NOT in my film!"
Mafioso - "It's no longer your film."
If we agree that Mulholland Dr. is essentially a fantasy, who's dream is it?
[quote]Furthermore, Betty’s convulsions within Club Silencio serve no purpose[/quote]
You may have just put your finger on why Naomi Watts didn't earn an Oscar for best actress. At first, it looked to me like she was experiencing unexpected turbulence on her flight back to Deep River. On my second viewing, I realized that she was supposed to be having an orgasm. You simply have to think like Freud. Have a quick look at the girls going in to Club Silencio.
https://ulozto.net/file/T7JVGsc99Rhc/mulholland-dr-entrance-to-club-silencio-mp4
The narrow entrance to Club Silencio. A vagina. The doors on either side of the opening. Labia. The taxi cab approaching the entrance. A penis. After the girls enter the club, they pass through another narrow opening. The cervix. Finally, they enter the uterus. Club Silencio is a metaphor for the uterus, as is the blue box. And, the odd shaped key that fits in the hole. A penis. Have a quick look at the 'orgasm'. If you look carefully, it looks like the magician also has one. For a brief moment you'll see him thrust slightly forward, and you'll hear a muffled 'hmph', just before Betty stops shaking.
https://ulozto.net/file/letQ5loFMG0L/mulholland-dr-in-club-silencio-mp4
So much for the easy part. I can see what David Lynch is trying to SHOW me, but I still don't understand what he's trying to TELL me. The obvious interpretation is Freud's primal scene, or possibly the Oedipus complex. However, both these scenarios usually involve only three people, Mommy, Daddy and the kid. If Rita is the kid, who is the lady with a punk hairdo that's watching mommy and daddy go through the motions?
[quote]The one thing I will give them credit for is how they used the matrix concept as an accessible metaphor for the illusory nature of reality ("maya", "Plato's cave", etc.). That's one thing that can't be taken away from them.[/quote]Now, that's an interesting idea that hasn't already been beaten to death!
More on Jacques Lacan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA4qIuqiS0Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qypBFozF24g
If you're French, you're in luck. The video series by Sapiens sur un caillou (Homosapiens on a pebble???) can be very enlightening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-_PUBKt-4
The dream begins when someone seems to be going to bed.
https://ist6-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/9/1/b/q/91bqz/3.-Bed_l.jpg
Notice, that we do not see who is sleeping. What we see is what the dreamer sees. A cinematographer like David Lynch might call this perspective, a point of view (POV) shot. I'll give one more obvious example.
https://ulozto.net/file/T7JVGsc99Rhc/mulholland-dr-entrance-to-club-silencio-mp4
Do you get the creepy feeling that the girls are being watched? Lacan called this the gaze. Does it seem like someone is rushing to get in the door at the same time the girls go in? That anonymous PRESENCE is the dreamer. Again, you don't actually see who is dreaming, you just see what the dreamer sees. Presumably, the dreamer identifies in some way with the people he/she is looking at. The dreamer could be an elderly woman (remember that 1950's stuff?), and Betty/Rita could reflect her younger days. The girls could be friends or relatives, or they could simply be two imaginary women altogether.
So, what's my point? If the dream begins with a POV shot, it should end that way. In a POV shot, we would not see Diane shoot herself. Instead, we would see a gun pointing at us, followed by a bright flash and caboom! What we actually saw is someone dreaming about a woman who killed herself. We did NOT see the dreamer commit suicide.
[quote]Honestly, it makes me frustrated when I keep reading comments like yours insisting that the movie is hard to understand, especially when there are so many essays and analyses that discuss it.[/quote]
Rhetoric? I've seen plenty of reviews on the film, and I don't find any of them convincing. However, I think this Lacanian (Jacques Lacan) perspective is the most accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zePEG7qKX-Y
As for the page you showed me. Regardless of the title, the author freely admits that the theory he's presenting is a CONSENSUS, not a definitive fact. He also admits that the said theory leaves many unexplained loose ends. The one that 'sticks out like a sore thumb' is the appearance of the Bogeyman and the lady with the punk hairdo AFTER Diane commits suicide. If, Diane was dreaming all along, after she died, the screen should have turned black.
You might imagine that the two bizarre characters in her dream are really supernatural beings that somehow possessed her mind and drove her to insanity. Or, perhaps you're in to Zen Buddhism and believe in instant Karma and reincarnation. I prefer a simpler explanation. Quite simply, Diane is NOT the person who is dreaming, and the dream did not actually end.
The primal scene is the day when junior walks in the bedroom and sees mommy & daddy having sex. Junior does not know what they're doing. From his point of view, daddy is assaulting mommy. The psychological shock is so traumatic that junior represses the event. As an adult, he has no recollection of any such occurrence, but the memory persists in his subconscious, and he relives it when he dreams. Except, because of what Freud called 'dreamwork', the images have been dramatically altered so that the event is almost completely unrecognizable. On Muholland Dr., a white car smashes into a black one. Male joins with female, and the couple twirl around like the dance in first scene of the movie. If you're familiar with Freud's theories, however, you'll see sexual references everywhere in this film.
Collision
https://ulozto.net/file/QUIompzO5IKf/mulholland-dr-collision-mp4
Winkie's
https://ulozto.net/file/EJUdr8D60U0B/mulholland-dr-the-bogeyman-mp4
Notice, at the very end of the Winkie's clip, we see Rita sleeping. She was sleeping just before the scene at Winkie's began and she continued sleeping into the next. So, at this point in the film, we are witnessing a dream nested within another dream.