Three questions about MD

Discussion of Mulholland Drive

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

User avatar
Simbabbad
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby Simbabbad » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:16 am

garethw wrote:My assertion is that there are many clues to the first part being a dream in the first part. It suggests to me that it was always intended.

But it wasn't. We do know that.

From what I remember the only things Lynch added to the first part are the pillow scene and the dance contest, which are clues. But he came up with the dream idea after the pilot was shot, and honestly, it was the only way to conclude a pilot episode in a satisfying manner : saying it's a dream and giving strong, moving meaning to that dream in relation to the main character.

garethw wrote:To me, that's an interpretation. :)

True. I didn't explain myself properly :?.

What I meant is, that it's easy to follow the movie. We can wonder what it means in a higher sense, but the action itself is clear, even if weird. Whereas in Mulholland Drive, if you don't understand the first part is Betty's Dream, or the BOB/Leland thing in FWWM, it doesn't make much sense, it doesn't work. That's why Lynch doesn't hide them and often tries to hint at those things in a very strong way, for example in Lost Highway Fred flat out says he likes to remember things his own way, which a very peculiar thing to say to officers, the movie starts with "I'm deranged", etc.

So I agree with Buck's Student when he says Lynch doesn't ever hides what's really going on, what I said for Eraserhead is picking the movie as it is coming : the dream or daydream scenes are shot in a rather explicit way, often showing Henry afterwards in a dreamy mood, sometimes even in bed. Those conclusions are taken from what's shown in the movie without trying to find clues or allegories very far, nothing is really "hidden" when you compare the film and the interpretation I wrote.
User avatar
garethw
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Deep River

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby garethw » Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:38 am

Simbabbad wrote:
garethw wrote:My assertion is that there are many clues to the first part being a dream in the first part. It suggests to me that it was always intended.

But it wasn't. We do know that.


Really? I certainly don't know that. What I know is it was intended to be an open-ended pilot with a bunch of threads, and that it was then given a closed ending. I think I'm aware of what's original, and what was added. I have no idea what the original intention was, or if my interpretation is "correct".

I've never heard or read anywhere where that David Lynch has ever offered *any* interpretation of MD, let alone that the closed ending was specifically written to make the first part a dream, so I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the widely-held view is even correct, let alone that it is different from the original intent. That's an assumption many of us have had, and I was merely interested in testing it.

In the first part, there is a fair bit of dialogue ("I'm in this... dream place!", "It's unreal, right?"), mood (Betty's wide-eyed arrival at LAX, the off-kilter dialogue with Coco) that does support the dream theory, and this material was shot for the pilot.


But maybe I just believe in the Rorschach theory more than you fellows do. :)
User avatar
Simbabbad
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby Simbabbad » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:19 am

Well, there's no reason to believe the pilot was shot with the intention of it being a dream. It doesn't make much sense. Even if it does work eventually in the movie, it's obviously tacked on.

Then, there's the fact Lynch explained how he found the idea to wrap everything up. He was clueless before, then he got a sudden inspiration. If he had always intended the pilot to be a dream, he wouldn't have talked about it that way, would he ?

And then, a friend of mine (Roland Kermarec) followed Lynch on the set when he shot the Mulholland Drive pilot, and post production. He was upset when it was turned into a movie because he said the project he followed was more interesting to him that the dream solution, which he finds artificial, and which to him spoiled the true nature of the pilot. He actively followed and talked to Lynch during the whole pilot production.

The ending is quite clearly a convoluted way to wrap every thread, it does work, but the stitched are apparent. Everything we know from what I mentioned to what actors said, and common sense, show the idea the first part is a dream was invented when the pilot got turned into a movie.
User avatar
garethw
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Deep River

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby garethw » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:07 pm

I guess we all have our own equally-valid opinions, but simply repeating what you think without evidence isn't much of an argument.

I see no reason to believe that the Lynch's revelation for ending the material as a closed piece, was not simply how to develop a mechanism that would bring what was intended to be a long-term arc to conclusion in a much more condensed form.

Your gut feel is no less valid than mine; I do take issue with those who definitively state that their interpretation of Lynch's work is more valid than anyone else's. My "gut feel" is that Lynch would not really jive with what any of us think.

(One of the interesting revelations of Greg Olson's book was that Lynch uses the term "car crash" as many of us would use "train wreck" - simply a metaphor for a terrible event. Couple that with the fact the he regards his owns films as "abstract"... Are you still absolutely convinced that your interpretation is "correct"? My own conclusion is that if Lynch sat down and described what he meant, it would not match anything that anyone has ever written. But I'm humble enough to admit that I don't really know.)
User avatar
Simbabbad
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby Simbabbad » Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:18 am

I don't know, I have a tendency to think the man who was on the set the whole time and spoke to Lynch regularly has some hindsight/knowledge about these things. When those fit everything else at my disposal and absolutely nothing contradicts them, I have the tendency to think it's the truth.

garethw wrote:(One of the interesting revelations of Greg Olson's book was that Lynch uses the term "car crash" as many of us would use "train wreck" - simply a metaphor for a terrible event. Couple that with the fact the he regards his owns films as "abstract"... Are you still absolutely convinced that your interpretation is "correct"? My own conclusion is that if Lynch sat down and described what he meant, it would not match anything that anyone has ever written. But I'm humble enough to admit that I don't really know.)

I'm not sure what that paragraph refers to. The idea the first part is a dream ?
User avatar
garethw
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Deep River

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby garethw » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:59 pm

Fair enough, but his actors frequently say they're not exactly sure what his films are about. I'm guessing they talk to Lynch, too.

Oh well, this is all moot point, since my question was predicated on something we don't agree on!

"I think he's genuinely happy for it to mean anything you want. He loves it when people come up with really bizarre interpretations. David works from his subconscious." -- Justin Theroux
User avatar
Simbabbad
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby Simbabbad » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:43 am

He's probably happy people extend his creations because he likes the idea his creations live after he finished directing them (that's the main idea of my site), but he's very very careful that the audience gets his main points. This is something we see in Mulholland Drive, Lost Highway ("I like to remember things my own way"), Fire Walk with Me...
User avatar
gavriloP
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby gavriloP » Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:24 pm

IT just occured to me little while ago that MD is really funny in one way: Lynch has always been great "dream" director, from Eraserhead to IE, yet MD that is his most "dream" film, wasn't originally a dream. So it doesn't have all the stuff that Lynch has in his intentional dream scenes, in his other works.

Of course Lynch being himself always gives little dreamy aura to all of his doings...

I just find this thing strangely amusing :)
User avatar
Jonatan Silva
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:46 am
Contact:

Re: Three questions about MD

Postby Jonatan Silva » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:25 am

Lynch made 10 question to his fan in way to understand the movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulholland ... llywood.22

Return to “MULHOLLAND DRIVE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest