Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)/Archive 1

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


 * Well, aside from the movie box cover, I was also going by the IMDb listing. I was trying to avoid using parentheses in the title, but if you feel the longer title is clearer or more correct, feel free to move it back to Mulholland Drive (movie).  IMDb does list "Mulholland Drive" as an alternate title. --Minesweeper 04:21, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ummmmm...the final frame of the film (the end of the end credits) has the name of the movie as "Mulholland Drive".


 * I removed the "incorrectly" as the the webpage itself uses both Drive (in the URL) and Dr. (in the street sign). I take it the official title is "Drive", but "Dr." is an acceptable variant.


 * Will do. (About the parentheses, I don't think that an article about the street is even necessary, but that's an entirely different issue.) -Branddobbe 21:39, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's arguable, esp. given the prolific number of articles on demonstrably less important topics. Mulholland Dr. is a quite famous street...for a variety of reasons. It's not just any old street.

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

Full-frontal Nudity? Where?
Lynch edited it to remove the full-frontal nudity of one of the actresses, allegedly at her request – which actress? android 79  03:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

Interpretation
To do away with interpretation of this film here is like saying "it is claimed that some guy named Jesus died and came back to life" under the entry of "Christianity." It's clearly absurd. The foremost question on most people's minds after seeing it will be "what does it mean?" If an encyclopedia entry does not even attempt to answer that, what good is it? The "go to IMDB to interpret" comment hardly makes any sense at all: if this is the standard to be followed, why write anything of this movie on Wikipedia at all? Why not just provide a link to IMDB and be done with it? Additionally, the insertion of the phrase "identity switch" is not a complete sentence. It's also plainly wrong: it implies that in the second part of the movie Watts plays Diane and Harring plays Betty. And dammit, that sexual encounter IS "highly erotic!" 8-)
 * Why won't you accept that Lynch was passed his creative peak when he made this film and that he was just gaming us by heavily dressing a non-plot in symbolism to have a good laugh at the expense of film-geeks?
 * are you aware that original research is prohibited at wikipedia? are you aware that uncited POV (and more) is prohibited? i understand that this may seem crazy at first, but there are ways to make comprehensive articles within the constraints. it just isn't easy, nor should it be. the reverted material is unencyclopedic crap. it's barely even non-crap outside of an encyclopedia. "However, there is a dominant interpretation that is accepted by a majority of viewers:" yeah? cite it. i could cite the bible for your example above, and it could be done smoothly (unlike that straw man example). you're up. Wbfl 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Even if you're right it's still a lame thing to write.


 * If it was Roger Ebert who said that Betty and Diane's sexual contact was highly erotic, or even, somehow, erotic in some other sort of way, maybe his name could be cited? That does sort of sound like Ebert's style but I'll leave it up to you to dig it up, or root it out, if it can be done.


 * He doesn't use that exact phrase in his review. But he certainly strongly implies that in it.


 * It seems you have completely missed my point, which is that interpretation is a critical part. "Just the facts" are completely inappropriate, since such obviously abstract materials have to be accompanied by interpretations.  Besides, this interpretation is hardly my original research.  Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of Freudian dream interpretation, which is hardly an esoteric doctrine, can see it.  But if it must have a source, here is one (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/11/07/mulholland_dream/index.html?x).  Finally, your rudeness merely undermines your own credibility.  You may disagree, but there's no need to call other's writing "crap."  BTW, what's up with that "identity switch" phrase?  Why put it there to imply that in the second part of the movie Watts and Harring switch roles -- which they clearly DON'T do?  And why can't it be a complete sentence?


 * lordy lordy. i'll assume you're not talking to me about "identity switch", since i didn't put it in the article. take it out. to your claim that my "rudeness merely undermines your own credibility", that's absurd. only a lazy person can't separate my "rudeness" from my argument, which is entirely what my credibility relies upon. it's common for newbies at wikipedia to be disgusted when their attempts at brilliant prose are zapped. tough. get used to it. learn WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. then, if you must, attempt to add interpretation zalwonkey in an encylopedic manner. if you don't want to do that, start a blog. go to the imdb forums. do something other than corrupt articles here. above all, don't expect others to conform sloppy material to encyclopedic standards; it's gonna get thrashed. i assure you. add it properly, and i'll protect it, though i think it's all arbitrary, presumptive hogwash that spits in the face of lynch's unique power. Wbfl 20:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wbfl, while I agree much of the more speculative assertions on interpretation or allusions needed toning down, what you have essentially done is extract all references and comments on interpretation. This is going too far in the other direction. Saying that interpretation has no place by definition is patently absurd. And while interpretation itself may be original research and directly introducing it into a wikipedia article may violate NOR policy, the existence of critical interpretation itself and the objective reporting of the substance of critical interpretation by others is NOT a violation of NOR policy. By your reasoning, the article on Shakespeare should contain nothing expressing verifiable opinions on Shakespeare's style, reputation, interpretations of his works, or critical theory. Do you consider any critical interpretation beyond the rote facts of Shakespeare's life and the most dry plot summaries of his plays to be "zalwonkey"?? It is true that the "dream interpretation" is the most common interpretation offered by those who have thought about the film, and this is verifiable in a number of independent essays, opinion pieces, commentaries, and even scholarly articles, some of which are even listed in the external links. Moreover, it is an interpretation for which considerable empirical support from the film itself can be garnered. In fact, I wonder how seriously you can really be taken, given that you seem to be predisposed against interpreatation as a matter of principle. ("Though I think it's all arbitrary presumptive hogwash that spits in the face of Lynch's unique power.") You don't bother to explain exactly what you mean by "all" here, but you definitely seem to have a bias against the whole notion of literary or interpretative criticism as a useful or meaningful activity. And this certainly undermines your credibility. Revolver 04:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Some one should comment on the fact that Lynch has several clues in the DVD box. (PM)

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


 * Jean-Luc Godard's movie Contempt even closes with the same mysterious word - Silencio!


 * In the case of Contempt, that word is Italian for Lights, Camera, Action.


 * In both of those two movies, both the storylines end on the same word. After it is uttered, the final scenes fade into silence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * If citations are needed, I'll work on them as time allows. Meantime I humbly suggest you do some serious reading up on both the film Mulholland Drive and on Wikipedia policy. For starters, editing by revert is wholly unacceptable. Please stop that. Thank you. Gwen Gale 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I have read up on the film.  I own it and know much about it.  But I see no point in listing all the interpretations (on the plot and so-called "symbols") that people have---there are hundreds.  I think the most logical thing to do is include the most common and widespread basic interpretation.  Besides, if anyone wants to read up on all the theories that people have there's a link to "Lost on Mullholand Drive" (mulholland-drive.net) at the bottom of the page in the links section.    I had a problem with things like saying the cowboy is a reference to old Hollywood westerns or a certain outfit is a reference to another film.  While quite possibly so, you have no way of truly knowing and it's just a POV.  Like with the cowboy, that's just someone's random opinion and is not some widespread belief, nor does it really add anything to the article.  Like I said, if you list all the random theories/interpretations that people have it makes the article drag and go on forever (and it looks sloppy and not like an encyclopedia article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.78.136 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I was a bit puzzled at the Pulp Fiction reference! It's a vaguely similar idea, but hardly "paying homage". Lugnuts 11:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry you're so puzzled. The film has a consensus interpretation for which citations are readily available and even the allusions are widely documented. Lynch's paucity of comment is irrelevent to both citing the topic and WP policy. I don't like edit warring and don't appreciate argument by blanking but I'll hold off until I have time to cite the content which was blanked. Gwen Gale 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Contested move request

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

''The following request to move a page has been added to Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.'' —Stemonitis 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mulholland Dr. (film) → Mulholland Dr. — Actual title; latter redirects to former —-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that abbreviating the word "Drive" to "Dr." isn't just a stylised form; everyone pronounces it "drive". Most reviewers call it "Mulholland Drive", in full. Some people might see a request like this as a devious way of sidestepping due process; it is more transparent to request a move (for example) from Mulholland Drive (film) to Mulholland Dr., rather than going through Mulholland Dr. (film). --Stemonitis 08:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely Mulholland Dr. should be redirecting to Mulholland Drive anyway? PC78 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move: It is listed by Imdb and All Movie Guide as "Mulholland Dr.". Amended: Support  (film) disambiguation per PC78.
 * Comment: The disambiguating term most certainly isn't superfluous, as I have indicated above. PC78 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, thanks for pointing that out to me. Skomorokh  incite  03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support it's the correct name, as per IMDB, per Lynch's site, and per anyone who can read. Lugnuts 18:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support move to Mulholland Dr. (film) but oppose move to Mulholland Dr., per comments above. PC78 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this; there certainly is a risk of confusion between this article and the article about the road. Dekimasu よ! 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're an idiot, then yes. It's easy to have each article pointing to the other at the top of the page.  EG: For Mulholland Dr. clearly state "This article is about the David Lynch film, for the road, see Mulholland Drive" and vice-versa.  Lots of articles with similar names have this on them. Lugnuts 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mulholland Dr. should redirect to Mulholland Drive because that's the primary topic, not the film. And keep your "idiot" remarks to yourself. PC78 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you can't tell the difference between an article about a road and one about a film? Lugnuts 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined towards oppose. It is not clearly established that the "actual title" of the film is abbreviated. The official web site uses "Mulholland Drive" consistently -- with the exception of the image of the street sign. Most reviewers use the title "Mulholland Drive". And Mulholland Dr. should be a redirect to the actual street. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I'm with older ≠ wiser.  Mulholland Dr. should be a redirect to Mulholland Drive, which should be an article about the road itself.  Whether the article about the film should be at Mulholland Dr. (film) or Mulholland Drive (film), I'm not sure, but it definitely should not be at Mulholland Dr. (or Mulholland Drive).  --Serge 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Mulholland Drive (Mulholland Dr.) is primarily the name of the road in Los Angeles and Hollywood. The film (named after this road) should stay where it is now, and Mulholland Dr. should redirect to Mulholland Drive.--Endroit 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

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

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

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

Category: Surrealist films
In removing the film from the above category I was mainly influenced by a strong impression that Lynch has long left his surrealist days behind. There are some sequences in the film that could be said to show a surrealist influence, but on the whole I found the film to be a narrative with two points of view, and a smattering of surreal elements of a type that Lynch uses, characteristically, to heighten dramatic tension. It's a judgement call, I might as well have retained it on the basis of Lynch's earlier work. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony and I discussed this on his talk page (along with some general issues about the category) and I think it's okay to keep this film in the "Surrealist films" category for now. Of course if other editors object the issue certainly remains open for discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-added the category for INLAND EMPIRE. I think some work needs to be done on cleaning up this article though. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd improve it by teaching it how to yodel, but I somehow don't think this problem is amenable to surrealist solutions. --Tony Sidaway 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really know how to yodel? I never saw you over at the now (thankfully) defunct "WikiProject Teaching Quick Pitch Change To Smarty-Arty-Articles." Telephones falling down a pink staircase. Yes, that article is in need of some real work, but personally I am not at all an expert on the topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 08:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Surrealist walks into a bar. A chocolate bar.  Breaks every bone in his body.  --Tony Sidaway 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Two - one to paint a giraffe and one to fill a bathtub with orange tools. Lugnuts (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving article?
I just saw this film a week ago, and have been absolutely consumed with it since. I've watched it every day since the day I saw it for the first time. I have access to an immense depository of research sources, and may be able to get this article improved to the point of feature in time, but I have to admit that I'm afraid of learning more about it. Absolutely petrified, like burned guy in the back of the restaurant terrified, for some reason. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means go for it (and just be glad you don't have to deal with that scene in Lost Highway where the "Mystery Man" first comes into the film and places a call to himself - that was truly terrifying, though the dude behind the restaurant is up there too) and I can probably try to help a little bit. I think the biggest thing to work on would be to discuss various interpretations of the film. There seems to be a lot of that out there, and a lengthy section along those lines would probably be especially interesting to readers (what we have now is inadequate). It might also be useful to discuss secondary sources that compare the film to Lynch's earlier work if that is available. It's definitely possible to have a very extensive article on this film, much more so than for most films.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the part that I'm most afraid of. I'm surprised to find how much I like Betty and Rita, and found the last 1/4 of the film painful and disturbing. I'm sure David Lynch is thrilled about that... However, I also think that Lynch made it so ambiguous that my interpretation of events (all scenes after the blue box are opened represent what Betty imagines would have to happen to her to put her in the bed as the corpse) are as valid as anyone else's. I really don't want to find out that I'm horribly wrong and the reality was Diane's depressing life and Camille as a half-evil heartbreaking tease. I really like Rita. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The most common interpretation definitely seems to be the one you don't care for, i.e. basically the first 2/3 to 3/4 of the film is essentially a dream - scripted as a classic Hollywood romance - while the nasty stuff at the end is what actually happened (though presented in a non-linear fashion). However this film has spawned a multitude of interpretations (see this web site and particularly this page for example). Lynch himself is generally not one to force a certain viewpoint on the audience, though I can see how you might be reluctant to put a lot of time into researching alternative views when you prefer a certain viewpoint. Regardless of how one ultimately views it though, I think Betty and Rita's story in the first two-thirds of the film is one of the more compelling on-screen romances in quite some time. From my point of view, even if it is a dream, it is no less compelling since the entire film itself is obviously a fiction. Anyhow, it's completely up to you but like I said I'll try to lend a hand if you do decide you want to work on this, though I'm a bit busy in the next few weeks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a little bit of reading. More like, running into a room and running out again. I know there are a multitude of theories about what is going on in the film, but honestly, my interpretation makes me feel so much better, which is as good as any reason to prefer it, I suppose. I concur with your opinion of the compelling romance. I am extraordinary critical of straight women enacting a man's fantasy and have seen a good share of simply awful, bile-inducing lesbian-themed movies. Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring did a sincere, artful job with their onscreen relationship for two apparently straight actors. Exhibit 1: they hooked me, I guess. I'll poke around and see what I can find. I have access to the library and online database at the University of Florida, so let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just saw this film a week ago, and have been absolutely consumed with it since. - I'm the same every time I watch it. I must have seen it 20 or 30 times now, and every time I do, I discover something new, or some other theory to consider.  I recommend you read some of the articles on the website lostonmulhollanddrive.  I've begun to put some time aside to watch INLAND EMPIRE over again.  It doesn't have the same impact as MD, but it's still a great film too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a lot to read, this is true. I'm in the middle of quite a few articles right now, but thanks for the nod in that direction. I'll read those, too. Seems to be beyond my will to leave this alone. I'd be much happier and sleep better if I did. Edit to say: my biggest regret so far is reading a Maxim article about Laura Elena Harring. Maxim could make Eleanor Roosevelt sound like a blithering idiot. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Maxim is truly one of the more offensive publications out there (I think I found the article you refer to), particularly for anyone with inclinations that are even vaguely feminist (I'd always thought of it as nothing more than incredibly sexist and juvenile, but apparently they also once printed "a cartoon depicting Mahatma Gandhi being beaten, kicked and bloodied." Good one, dude!). Thankfully I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source for our purposes (and thankfully Eleanor Roosevelt passed on several decades before it started publishing, so no danger there). By the way the changes look good so far from a quick glance, though I'll read through the whole thing more closely in the next day or so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Duly noted about Maxim. I'll be working on the article for a few weeks probably, and I do know my citations look like dog poop right now, so I'll be looking to fix those up and make them pretty as well. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources, academic criticism and the like
First off thanks to Moni3 for her good work on this so far - obviously I did some low-level copy editing that was hopefully largely constructive and added in a couple of new references.

Also to Moni, I assume you're gathering some of your sources from Pro-Quest? I just downloaded and saved a bunch of useful stuff (of a more academic nature) from various journals including Cinema Jounal, Film Quarterly, Journal of Film and Video, American Image, and Raritan (I have not reviewed any of these closely, but they all looked decent on the face). I'm assuming you've found, or will find, a lot of this stuff but if not send me an e-mail (it's enabled on my user page) and I can pass some of this along. I'd personally like to go pretty heavy on academic sources for the interpretation section and it seems like we could do that. I also downloaded an entire dissertation called "Visualizing Levinas" which deals with this film and two others and which may be useful.

One other thing I found, which is actually freely available online, is this article from The Guardian. It has short interpretations from six top film critics. It would probably be good to cull some stuff from there and turn it into a paragraph for the interpretation section. Perhaps then we could follow with some academic criticism which goes into a bit more depth and utilizes film theory, but of course I'm open to other suggestions.

I'll try to take a look at some of the smarty-arty film nerd material I nicked from ProQuest in the near future and work up some stuff for the article, and like I said I'm happy to pass that along if you don't get a hold of it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still poking around. I'd rather not have to get caught with my pants down with bad citations, so I'm cleaning up what I've done. I try to read 3-4 articles a day, add what I can, but the reading of the articles in Lynchian in itself. Once I've read an article, I realize there needs to be another dimension to this one. So I'm going to use a sandbox off my userpage to reconstruct some portions, specifically a "characters" section (and I hope to delete the list of the cast in exchange for well-written character descriptions). I've also found some articles on JSTOR, which I will certainly read. I would love to read what you're reading as well, so yes, I'll look on ProQuest. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple of comments on new additions
Your great work continues Moni3 - you are vastly improving this article, and the Characters and Romantic content sections add a lot. A couple of minor questions though. In the Betty character section you say "For one critic, Betty performed the role of the film's consciousness, and unconscious." Is the first word supposed to be conscience rather than consciousness? If not I don't understand what the critic was getting at and the point should probably be fleshed out a bit. Actually even it it was supposed to be "the film's conscience, and unconscious" it is probably worth it to explain what the critic meant by that.

Second, I'm not sure that it makes much sense to include the two conflicting statements from Harring re: the love scene. I don't think it really advances the article, though it does make Harring look a bit silly. I think we have to consider that one of the sources was Maxim which is a fairly ridiculous publication (as we already discussed), and that Harring might have consciously changed her standard line to "I'm glad I had a boyfriend" given that she was doing an interview for a magazine largely read by single young men. Or she might just make stuff up and say whatever suits her for whatever reason. I don't know obviously, but that kind of jumped out as me as a sort of "Gotcha Laura Elena Harring!" moment even though I'm sure that was not your intention. If there is some way to better contextualize it - or if here conflicting statements were fodder for some commentator/critic - then it would make more sense to me to have those there.

Finally, the last sentence of the "Romantic content" section is a run-on and a complex one at that. There are two or three complex ideas at work there and I don't think it can all be said in one sentence. You might want to unpack that a little bit and break it into a couple of sentences (I would give it a shot but don't have the article handy, though I might get a hold of it). For one thing you might expand the discussion of the "classic theme in literature and film depicting lesbian relationships" - either via example of a more detailed elaboration - as I think a lot of casual readers will not pick up on what you are saying there.

Anyhow these are fairly minor quibbles, really nice work as I said.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey BTP, I very much appreciate the nudges to fix prose. I'll be copyediting this article over and over in the next few weeks, and there are many places in the articles I work on the make perfect sense to me, but not to others. I'm still reading and writing - I have a section on the style of Lynch's directing, as well as the soundtrack in the works in my sandbox. I'm going to be working on this article quite a bit this weekend - I'll be house sitting with dogs and not much else to do.


 * The Romantic content section I wrote...hmmm...logically because so much has been written about the lesbian scenes in this movie, but written quite...ickily. I made up a word. I also thought it had to be included because from the reading I've been doing, these interviews and descriptions are just, I, uh, they sting, and they're remarkably stupid in some instances (the numerous stories of making out in front of the camera and collapsing into giggles, for example). Here's a difficult thing. Most of the articles I work on improving I do to honor them, but in this instance, I'm working on this film to exorcise it (and honor it). I avoided this film for years because I thought it was Maxim's idea of hot lesbian love, so what is written about the actors and their roles is notable, as it goes to form a popular conception of lesbian identity. What I found so awful and violent in the film was my sincere desire for these women to work it out some way because I like them so much, and to find that wish quashed in a way that is quite cliche yet still valid, since there are just as many dysfunctional lesbian relationships as there are any others.


 * Perhaps my real fear in the back of the restaurant is that in reading volumes of information as I'm doing, will diminish the love I have for these characters and their story. What captivates me now soon won't. Maybe we all end up like Diane. God. --Moni3 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and if you feel like doing research on this will severely spoil your view of the film to an unacceptable degree then don't be afraid to just let it go! But obviously I'd be happy if you to decide to keep working on it!


 * In your reply you did not exactly respond directly to the question about the Harring quotes. I think a neutral reader coming in will find that passage a bit odd and more about Harring than about the film (in a way her thoughts on the love scene, which were quite personal, might make more sense at Laura Harring). I'm not sure how to handle it but I think we should either contextualize those somehow or possibly just remove them (if we had a secondary source referring to those conflicting statements that would ideal).


 * You also might have skipped over my first question which was the easiest. Was it supposed to be "conscience" or "consciousness" in the Betty character section?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooookaaaayyy. I just read over what I wrote last night... No more posting after 1 am for me, especially after immersing myself in Lynchian analyses.


 * "And if blonde Betty is the film's governing consciousness (or, as we come to understand, its governing unconscious) then dark-haired Rita is its object of desire," is the full quote by Amy Taubin.


 * I'm going to look hard at the Romantic content section. It was my intention not to point out the actors' words, but the media insistence in these stories that 1. the lesbian content is hot, 2. the actors are certainly not lesbians, so let's all relax, 3. filming the romantic scenes is quite similar to Penthouse Letters, but 4. the actors are certainly not lesbians. Until I find a secondary resource that points out the ridiculousness of this, I'll remove some of the content. I don't mind the critique of what I'm adding - it makes a better article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, all the research is admirable, but I think the article reads more like a graduate thesis for film school or an obsessed fan's tribute to the film than it does an encyclopedia article, which is what it's supposed to be. MovieMadness (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you think it should consist of? As of now, I have researched reviews and critiques, with a few short analyses. I admit I have little experience writing for a film here at Wikipedia, but I have written other FAs. I don't deny I am obsessed, clearly, but the article must suit the subject. David Lynch films do not parallel the straightforwardness of Superman or Star Wars. I would like to include what is required for films, but material must also be tailored to reflect what has been discussed in print. --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me say you deserve an A for writing an excellent thesis on Mulholland Falls. However, since you admittedly don't have much experience writing Wikipedia film articles, may I suggest you take a look at WikiProject Films/Style guidelines? Quoting film analysis isn't common, and while I'm not saying it shouldn't be included at all, I think your admitted obsession with the film may have allowed you to go overboard in adding far too much of it. It's not that David Lynch films do not parallel the straightforwardness of Superman or Star Wars; it's a matter of keeping all articles, regardless of the subject matter, as encyclopedic as possible. MovieMadness (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting film analysis should be common, and I'm rather disheartened to learn that it isn't. This is a complex work of art that has been discussed in academic journals - indeed it is very much an "art house" film that deserves to be discussed as such. I do not see what is non-encyclopedic about this entry, other than that it is a work in progress. MM you seem to be predisposed against adding critical analysis from film scholars and I personally do not agree with that at all. When I get a chance I plan to add more than Moni has already added, and I am not at all "obsessed" with this film, nor does this have anything to do with my graduate school work. Complex cinema warrants complex discussion - that's very encyclopedic in my view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll read the style guidelines absolutely. Thank you for posting that. I'll keep your comments in mind while including material and deciding what needs to go and what should stay. As the article is still at B class, I think it's premature to determine what is inappropriate until it goes up for GA or Peer Review at WP:Films or general Peer Review. As I told BTP, however, any commentary on what is in the article is helpful in making it the most comprehensive, most well-written article it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, Start class. Ok. Just as well. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bigtimepeace, I agree "complex cinema warrants complex discussion," but that constitutes POV, which definitely is not encyclopedic. There are places to hold such complex discussions, and Wikipedia is not one of them. I don't believe the fact you personally feel critical analysis from film scholars belongs in film articles gives you free reign to edit an article in a way that doesn't meet the guidelines of the project under which it falls or ignores the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. I appreciate the fact you and Moni3 are such fans of the film, but you need to separate discussion that belongs on a message board from the encyclopedic facts that belong in Wikipedia. Why not initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to determine whether or not there's a consensus among the project members that such additions are appropriate and, if so, to what extent they should be included? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What might be at issue here is the concept of POV vs. NPOV. POV is when I write the article stating it's the best movie of all time, with the most talented actors, using superlatives that have no citations, or conversely, that it's awful and should be erased from human memory. As article writers, we can only filter what has already been written about the topic. NPOV means the editors provide a balanced look at what others have written about it. If I included only criticism of the film without any praise, that is POV. When I asked for assistance in research for films, I hope I did not imply that I have no idea how to write an article for Wikipedia. In fact, I write darn good ones, if I don't say so myself. In asking for assistance, I was hoping to get insight on what parts of an article should be included for a film vs other FAs I have written. If the editors who are directly involved in this article feel it is ready to go to peer review, and there we meet a consensus of other editors experienced in this project and knowledgeable about the subject who feel the article is too something, then it is time to address the style guidelines or perform massive copy edits. --Moni3 (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the quality of your articles. You wanted insight, and I tried to provide some by suggesting you look at WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for assistance. Isn't the time to address the style guidelines before you spend a great deal of time adding material that eventually may be deemed inappropriate? Believe me, I fully appreciate your passion for this film; I just think it's getting in the way of keeping the article about it as encyclopedic as possible. MovieMadness (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MovieMadness your comments are quite out of bounds in my opinion. Neither Moni3 nor myself are inexperienced Wikipedians, yet you are speaking to us as though we were. I don't care for your tone, and I don't remotely appreciate your suggestion that I am merely a fan of this film and am somehow here to promote it, or that the material in this article belongs in a message board. Statements like that are not at all collegial. And I'm afraid you don't understand much about NPOV, even though you are a member of a WikiProject. You are suggesting that commentary from film scholars is POV and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. That is patently absurd. Our articles (and I've written some, Moni has written some featured ones, so neither of us are amateurs here) should be sourced with the best sources possible (would you argue that history articles should not be sourced with books by historians, all of which are POV?...I doubt it). Folks who write on/teach about film are the best possible sources for any film article and I'm completely shocked that you seem to be suggesting otherwise.


 * And downgrading this article to start class was a bit bush league in my view. Please explain, specifically, how this article is more like this version of the Beethoven movie article as opposed to this version of the Back to the Future article (the examples from the WikiProject film guidelines, which incidentally are not even tailored to films since you have the sentence "For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well..." in your start class guidelines, which suggests not much time was put in to crafting the guideline).


 * And please understand I don't give a fig how the article is rated right now - I'm just questioning your judgment and want you to explain your rationale. It can stay start for all I care, though how an article with an infobox, several images, 4000+ words, and 38 footnotes from very reliable sources is just a "start" eludes me. But then again how any Wikipedian could seriously suggest that scholarship on a topic does not belong in an article also eludes me. I know I'm being peevish here and I apologize for that, but this is all ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In response, all I can say is you completely have misinterpreted my comments and the spirit in which they were made. I never suggested either you or Moni3 were inexperienced Wikipedians; she confessed to being inexperienced in writing film articles, and I was trying to address her concerns.
 * "Folks who write on/teach about film are the best possible sources for any film article" is accurate to an extent; I just don't believe everyone who has written commentary is worthy of being quoted. I was suggesting prudence be exercised when culling comments from various analytical discussions about the film, but perhaps I wasn't clear in expressing myself.
 * Articles I thought were a "start" based on the amount of content that was included have been downgraded to "stub" by editors with more experience than I. When I asked why, it was explained to me that simply because an article includes an infobox, several images, 4000+ words, and 38 footnotes doesn't automatically elevate it to B status if it doesn't read well and doesn't follow the guidelines of the project under which it falls. As present, the article doesn't flow smoothly at all. As someone who is not familiar with the subject, I find it to be confusing. Isn't an encylopedia supposed to instruct rather than leave the user bewildered?
 * I didn't create the film project guidelines. I suugested you start a discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines if you disagree with them or would like to suggest changes.
 * How can you say "this is all ridiculous as far as I'm concerned"? Isn't the purpose of the discussion page to present an opinion, make suggestions, raise questions, and otherwise engage in polite, intelligent discussion without dismissing a POV other than your own the way you did?
 * I feel the only thing "out of bounds" here is the manner in which you attacked me. This perhaps is my perception rather than your intent, but I don't think I was the least bit harsh in my previous comments. In fact, I think I was quite respectful. I'm sorry you felt otherwise. MovieMadness (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, which may not be much since we seem to have a clear difference of opinion about what constitutes a good article,
 * The only reason for an article not to read like a thesis overview is that it may be pretentious and deliberately obtuse. I don't think the article reads that way so far, which is no mean feat since much of what has been written about the film uses Freudian analysis and other heady stuff.
 * Keeping information from reliable sources out of an article because it may be too much information is a disservice to the reader, as would be keeping the prose in its simplest form. In my opinion, the best articles I have read here at Wikipedia are inspirational in urging the reader to learn more about the subject. Not exhaustive, but comprehensive. Following guidelines because they are there is not a good reason to keep commentary out of the article. After all, guidelines are only guidelines.
 * It is not WP:Films guidelines I am considering in editing this article, although they are helpful; it is FA criteria.
 * I think setting a new standard for the quality of future articles is not a bad goal. This would be the perfect article to do it, as Lynch redefined filmmaking.
 * I've already stated my position. I'm going to continue to add relevant material to the article, source it well, copy edit for clarity, and take the suggestions of editors who are familiar with the content and potential of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks MovieMadness for clarifying, it does help me understand your view, but when you lecture other editors about POV and basically implicitly accuse them of having a bias on the article because they like the subject that will rarely go over well. I accept that you did not mean to come off as lecturing but that's how it sounded, which is why I responded harshly. I appreciate your clarification regarding film scholars and now see that you think it's fine to add that kind of material which I obviously agree with, and of course one should not cite anyone and everyone. You did not really explain why you think this is a start class (general reference to the project guidelines does not do it, nor does an invocation of other - nameless - articles you have worked on before). You think the article is confusing and that's basically your rationale. I don't think it is at all confusing (and I only wrote a few small portions). If you can explain specifically, per guidelines, why this article is a start class that would be appreciated, however I'm not going to make a big thing about this. I just want to understand the basis for your rationale other than "I find it confusing." Even explaining why and where it is confusing would be useful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Resources
Here are some resources that I thought you may find useful: I may be able to find some references, as I was not sure how much Moni3 could find on her own. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GOT IT
 * GOT IT
 * Trying to find it
 * GOT IT
 * Trying to find it
 * Trying to find it
 * GOT IT
 * GOT IT
 * GOT IT
 * Thank you, Erik. Very much. I've found what I marked, and a few more. I'm trying to read through them to understand each article's point, but a few take a good, slow reading - or three. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you. I'm trying to do critical analysis for Fight Club, as you can see here.  The going's been rather slow, as you can tell. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Fight Club. Good luck with that. And thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't believe how good this article is now! It's been totally transformed in a few days.  Nice work, Moni3. Lugnuts (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in looking at Pulp Fiction (film), which I think is a very good approach by DCGeist for that film in terms of critical analysis. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Why is that still at B class?
 * I have been considering the organization and arrangement of the information in the article. I like how the article ends, writing-wise, with the quote by Harring, or just some quote that sums it all up, but I think Interpretation should come before the Characters section, or else it just doesn't make sense (although making sense almost belies the point). I'm also considering integrating Interpretations and Characters, or just some kind of reorganization there. I'm also thinking of integrating the Romantic content into Characters and Reception. I'm not sure yet. I'm reading it over and over just to think here... --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think DCGeist has pursued any kind of assessment yet. It's definitely GA at the very least.  As for restructuring the article, I think you're free to try out different approaches.  I would say that Plot usually comes first, Production is usually in the middle, and Reception is toward the end.  Maybe the interpretative content can go toward the end, since it's more retrospective?  It would work if you want some kind of chronological order to it.  Of course, it can be argued that the interpretative content is the most important and should go higher.  Lots of ways to go about it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should suggest he get that assessed, unless he just doesn't care. If that's the case, I envy him... Would it be terribly bad form of me to steal his awards tables?


 * Since the characters in this film are so integral to its mystery, I really hope I can get away with having such a substantial Characters section. I don't think it would do to shorten it and transfer the information to other sections... I'm still trying to think of how to arrange the rest. So far I'm ok with the Plot, Production History, Style (although I need to work on this section more), and Interpretations - although I'm still not sure of where it should be placed. --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How does one cite the insert card for the 2004 DVD? --Moni3 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can look at Template:Cite video and see about revising an attribute to mention an insert card instead? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote to Watermark (No. 56) and LesbiaNation (No. 62) for complete citations to the articles I used. The links that are there now are from fan sites and they won't endure FAC scrutiny, I predict. I hope I'll be able to get them or I'll have to remove the content, and I don't want to do that. However, I can't find contact information for Movieline or Guerrilla Filmmaker. Do you have any experience with these publications? How can I get the citations? --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fan sites may be challenged. I haven't been too critical of the article since I know you're in a period of expansion.  I think that there is a lot of sufficient references used, so fan sites may not be on top of the list in terms of authority about the film.  As for Movieline (since I think you took care of Guerrilla Filmmaker already), I don't know how to access that.  Just saw that in the index about this particular film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Images
May I encourage the implementation of non-free images whose fair use rationales would be explicitly backed by the article's content, particularly from third-party, published sources? In my experience, it is subjective to argue for a particular screen shot to be included in the Plot section. There are many that could be taken from the film, even more so with this very interpretative piece of cinema. I would recommend removing the existing images from the Plot section and reviewing the article's content to see if any particular passage would be significantly strengthened by using a screen shot. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to add all the sections I plan to - a couple more characters and a section on Lynch's filmmaking style - before trying (desperately) to simplify what is in the plot section. Much of what is in the plot section is now in Characters and what I'm writing for Style, so it's a bit redundant. I hope to shorten it considerably, and shift the Diane/Camilla shot to characters. If I can stuff content, I am woefully inept in images - I cannot possibly try to teach myself how to capture screenshots without hurting myself or my physical possessions. If there are more images to be added, I need assistance from someone who knows how to do that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to what you can do. I've usually preferred the approach of worrying about images after the content is laid out; that way, any added images will be pretty justified.  It would probably be easy to find a website like this that has screen caps of Mulholland Drive, but nothing came up quickly on Google.  There is a way to take a screen capture from the DVD (I've heard PowerDVD does this best).  It would probably be a good idea to find an editor who has both that software and the film. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me consider what would enhance the article visually when I'm finished with the primary content. I'll come to you to ask you questions about licensing the images since that's another aspect of film articles I'm unfamiliar with. Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw a screenshot somewhere of Mr. Roque in his large wheelchair, which I think would add to the Style section. Any tips on how to get that and license it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this helpful at all? It's not the greatest quality; obviously, a screen cap would be better. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The image of Mr. Roque is a great start, though I think we should try to pursue a screen cap of higher quality down the road. We should phase out the other two non-free images if we can't come up with specific fair use rationales for them. Are there any scenes or shots that could be visually illustrated in the article? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do the images have to be right next to, or in the same section as what describes them? The first image of Betty arriving in LA is a good one to display the lighting contrast between Betty and Diane. I can change the caption in the shot of Diane and Camilla "exchanging words" to reflect the different cinematic treatment (but the mention of lighting is done in the Style section, not the Characters section). A shot of Betty auditioning up close with Woody Katz would fit, and a shot either of Betty and Rita or Rebekah del Rio in Club Silencio would be great. --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's usually been the trend, but it's not necessary. I would say that if the image is outside of the relevant section, then the explanatory caption should have a reference tag.  Also, if you are going to define rationales for the images, make sure you go to their image pages and make it explicit there.  You can see what I did for the Mr. Roque image to salvage it, though you are welcome to tweak it.  (#1 and #8 are usually the ones to specify, though I experience redundancy in writing out either of them.)  As for the images you have in mind, we will have to find someone who has the DVD and the software.  I'd be happy to do it, but I don't have the film.  I have to admit, though, the details this article provides makes me want to see it again, since I saw it during a time that I wasn't "cinematically enlightened". :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the DVD and can take good quality screencaps. Just let me know which pic you want and I'd be happy to upload it. For An Angel (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article has enough images right now. Any more and we'll be pushing the #8 Non-free content criteria. I appreciate the offer, however. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Style
This section, which focuses primarily on cinema style and technique is the one I'm most unsure of due to my lack of experience in film articles. If anyone has any suggestions about how to improve it, strengthen it, add to it, or wrap up and perceived loose ends, please let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Article sequence
I respectfully would like to suggest the article be restructured, for reasons of clarity, into the following sequence: Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Opening
 * Plot
 * Production History
 * Characters
 * Interpretations and allusions
 * A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood"
 * Romantic content
 * Style
 * Soundtrack
 * Critical reception
 * Awards and nominations (presently included under Release and reaction and commonly listed separately in film articles; the section could be expanded by including some of the more notable awards and nominations cited at )
 * DVD release (removing the oddly-placed separate box and incorporating the info in it into this section)


 * I think I agree with that, except for switching Characters and Interpretations. Without understanding most people think Betty is Diane's dream, the characters don't make sense yet. I'm working on an awards table. --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty good to me, though probably the interpretations should come first for the reason Moni mentions (also I wonder if the critical reception section should not be a bit earlier, perhas just before the soundtrack section). When I get a chance I want to look through some stuff I gathered which will probably result in some additions to the "Interpretations and allusions" section, perhaps in the form of a new sub-section or two. However this would not change the overall structure.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also had a suggestion to move Production history to the end, as it would flow from deep to shallow, as if the reader is finally floating to the surface. I'm not sure about that since the information about the pilot is important to knowing some of the loose ends are there because they were supposed to be taken care of with a series. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In film articles, the Production section generally follows the Plot synopsis and Critical reception and Awards and nominations come at the end, imitating the chronological order in which a movie is made, released and received by critics, and honored.
 * While I understand how a director's vision influences the choice of songs used in a film, I do think Soundtrack should be a section of its own rather than a sub-head of Style, but that's a minor issue. MovieMadness (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article still needs a separate and expanded Awards and nominations section. I'm willing to do this if there's no objection. MovieMadness (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note my colorfully titled, yet applicable sandbox section. I'm in the middle of it. I know it needs to be done, so I'm workin' on it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your work in progress is noted. As I suggested above, I hope you also plan to incorporate a separate DVD section and eliminate that box that's floating in the middle of nowhere, which reminds me of a sidebar in Entertainment Weekly. MovieMadness (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What box floating in the middle of nowhere? Maybe I'm not seeing what you are. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the box floating in the middle of the section with the sub-head A "poisonous valentine to Hollywood" . . . MovieMadness (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he's referring to the quote box that mentions the clues offered. I don't agree with eliminating the box, but I think that perhaps there could be a better relationship between the content of "A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood'" and the clues.  I don't think that the clues would be appropriate for a DVD section.  Speaking of the release of media, I just realized that there is not a single mention of the film's box office performance.  I would suggest using information from here to show the scale of the theatrical run.  Perhaps you could go so far to have a "Release" section that covers the theatrical run and home media (citing the DVD release and re-release), while you can have a "Reception" section with the awards and critical reaction.  What do you think? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote for three separate sections - Release, Critical reception, and Awards and nominations. MovieMadness (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is box office mojo a reliable source? Apparently I can't use IMDb for awards. They're so finicky at FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I use Box Office Mojo as a resource for my film articles and no one has objected so far. MovieMadness (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is a staple link for most film articles, and it's pretty objective data for contemporary films. It may be more difficult to cite with older films since tracking box office performance is a fairly recent phenomenon in cinema, but for Mulholland Drive, it should be appropriate to reflect its performance in the United State and Canada ("domestic", but don't use that word), other territories, as well as the number of theaters. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the WP:Films guidelines, looking for suggestions on what to include in a DVD release section, but there's nothing there. So - other than stating when the DVD was released, what other information should be included in such a section? --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that relevant information would include the insert, the gross of DVD sales or rentals (possibly not easy to find since this was back in 2001), and maybe any special features that you think would be informative to the reader. How about limiting the background explanation for the insert of clues and just focus on listing the clues in that respective section, then discuss how clues changed/disappeared after the first DVD release in the DVD-related section? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can, try to access VideoScan to find out about DVD sales. I'm looking at an April 22, 2002 article from DVD News that mentions DVD sales ending in April 14, 2002, with Mulholland Drive being listed fifth (after Spy Game, Thirteen Ghosts, Serendipity, and Training Day.)  That particular bit of information may not be too unique for an encyclopedia, so feel free to make that judgment call. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what else to include in this section besides what I did here (bottom of page). It's such a short section. If there's not much more to add to it, must it be included at all? --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no "must" about it. :) I wouldn't have a separate "DVD Release" section, though it could fit somewhere else.  Maybe details of the theatrical release and the DVD release can go together somehow?  By the way, are you planning to move the clues box?  I was fine with where it was before, but just thought that it would be more relevant to the passage about the DVD release to talk about the logistics of the clues being provided. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, hmmm. I don't know about moving the quotebox with the clues. MovieMadness gave me the impression it looks bad where it is, but I didn't notice it. I don't take into account what appears on different browswers with different settings. Ok let me see what I can insert here...--Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure what he said about that, either. I couldn't tell if he is seeing what we both see and that there is an issue with it, or if it does not display for him as it does for us.  By the way, from my brief look at sources for the DVD, I thought it was released on April 9 2002?  It says June, which seems to be a big difference. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is discouraged to have just one subsection in a section (referring to the Casting subsection under the Production history section), so I'd like to suggest possibly having the first two paragraphs be under "Development" and the passages related to filming under "Filming". — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, how about the "Filming" subsection? It's pretty clear where that starts. ;) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A'ight. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. :) What do you feel that you have left to do with this article?  Anything major, or just waiting on the peer review.  (I'll try to weigh in there; I need to take some time and comb through the article to see if everything can make sense to someone new to the topic.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's getting to that point where I've read it so many times I can almost recite it. Interesting, yes, but I can't pick out mistakes anymore, or places that don't make sense. This is where peer review comes in. I got some good suggestions last night from an editor I've worked with before. I hope others join in to review it. If not, I'll have to shop for the roughest, meanest, sons o' bitches around to rip it to shreds and tell me where it sucks. Which will make me all mad and stuff, pout, then go fix it where it will be better, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
In the reviews section we currently have basically five reviews which are negative and maybe 2.5 which are positive. There's a bit of a problem with the WP:UNDUE aspect of NPOV here in my opinion. The film received more positive than negative reviews from critics (as we acknowledge in that section with the RT cite), yet we quote twice as many negative reviews. I would recommend rectifying that eventually though it's not a super pressing issue or anything. It makes more sense to me to trim the negative reviews and add one or two positive ones rather than adding a bunch of positive reviews. We don't want to make the section too long, and we obviously just want to give readers a taste of what reviewers said. I'm not sure what to cut exactly, though the McCarthy review in Variety is a bit of an outlier in that he feels the last part of the film has "no apparent meaning or logical connection to what came before." Many have viewed this film as far more coherent in terms of narrative than much of Lynch's other work.

Anyhow, I do think we need to balance that section. We really can't say that most reviews were positive and then include mostly negative reviews. Any thoughts?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I think the Rex Reed review should stay in. Perhaps comments from another. You want to do it or should I? --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I don't completely disagree with the concern about the presentation of the reviews, I would recommend consciously ensuring that your interest in the film isn't prevailing on a different level (as that concern has been expressed). There is a discrepancy between mentioning the high rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the negative reviews right after, so why not move RT up?  In addition, would the article really be harmed if there was another paragraph of positive reviews to improve the balance?  I don't think that it would be "too long" if we did just that, and it would move the reaction of the film toward the positive.  My question is, are there any positive reviews that could provide insights that don't exist here? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur, a balance to be established in the number of reviews would be useful and then the overriding statement can be made wherein a positive assessment prevails. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Okay, I'll work on this in the next couple of days (Moni3 has already put in plenty of work). I'll take Erik's suggestion and look into adding some more positive reviews (though if they are too repetitive, cutting down the negative ones might be the best option). And believe me I can stay objective on this. It's just a simple fact that reaction to the film from critics was very positive. For example see Metacritic where there are around thirty reviews that are largely positive versus four that are largely negative. Three of the four negative reviews listed there are in the article, whereas only a couple of the positive reviews are in the article (including one which is cited as a negative review). That's a serious NPOV problem, so I'll work to correct the balance. Really we should probably have a 4 or 5 (or more) to 1 positive to negative ratio, but I'll try to end up more in the 2 to 1 range which I think is more than fair. Just give me a couple of days and then we can see what people think of whatever I come up with, though of course anyone else who feels the urge is welcome to work on this as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind assisting with the positive reviews. I had to remove a statement that claimed this was Lynch's "masterpiece" along with Blue Velvet because it didn't match what was in the article. If we can find strong claims like that, it add much to the article, especially in light of the lead claim that it got wide critical acclaim. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the Variety review is concerned, I think Todd McCarthy is an ideal critic to quote, since he expresses mixed feelings about the film, something I suspect many viewers have as well.
 * As far as trimming the section, let's not forget this article does fall within the film project and as such some of the guidelines proposed by the project should be followed. A well-written film article includes several reviews, as balanced as possible. When I included what were at the time a few badly needed negative comments, since only Rex Reed's had been quoted, I also added the surprisingly overlooked positive review by Stephen Holden of the New York Times to try to achieve that balance. I have found more positive reviews to quote. But I don't agree the article needs more positive than negative reviews quoted to prove the film was well-received. Mention of the RT rating supports that fact. I think failing to include more than one negative comment is a disservice to the reader. MovieMadness (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added two more glowing reviews. I would suggest removing the Premiere comment, which is more negative than positive and therefore seems out of place in its present position. Since I didn't include it in the first place, I didn't want to delete it. MovieMadness (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MM. The quote from Premiere has been removed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, the section includes one mixed, four negative, and five very positive reviews. I hope others agree this is a good balance. MovieMadness (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with having "Recognition" and "Criticism" subsections, which separates the "good" and the "bad" reviews in a POV approach. I really think that an attempt should be made to integrate all reviews under a common "Critical reaction" sort of section. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm anticipating a request to cut up this section since it's long. Any suggestions on headings for it other than what's there? --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would try to see if you can't have one section cover all the conventional reviews. If this is not possible, then perhaps the content could be split based on the substance, like a section on the characters and a section on the style.  Just a thought. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll remove the subheadings, but I don't think it makes them POV. If it becomes an issue in either of the PR's, I guess we'll try to figure out what they should be. --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant that it is more POV in the sense of structuring -- see WP:NPOV: "Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral. Examples that may warrant attention include: 'Segregation' of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself."  It's probably as not much of a concern here as it would be for an article about a major event in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, but I think it's one we can avoid. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this section won't be cut, since it's not too long by film article standards. I personally would argue against any requests for you to do so. I'm glad to see you removed the subheadings per Erik's suggestion, since these aren't common in film articles. MovieMadness (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Keep in mind most of the first paragraph of this section should be removed once you've added the separate Awards and nominations section, so that will shorten it a bit. MovieMadness (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we might be able to keep the paragraph, since it lists only what the article won from the most prestigious awards. I can shorten it perhaps. I'll be sensitive to the redundancy, but a few mentions should be kept in prose. --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the redundancy as the fact awards and nominations generally are kept separate from critical reception in film articles. MovieMadness (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work by MM to add those positive reviews, those were good choices. I removed the quote from the WSJ review for a couple of reasons. For one thing the initial review was only about 5 sentences long, whereas all of the other reviews cited (excepting somewhat the New York review) were full length reviews. Also I still think the issue of undue weight applies here. In order to hold to NPOV, articles on films which were widely acclaimed should not only state that fact but also include more positive than negative reviews (arguably significantly more). I think five positive reviews to three negative ones (with one fence sitter) is still a bit unbalanced but I'm fine with it. It's objectively true that the film received roughly 6 or 7 times more notable positive reviews than negative ones and our quotation of reviews should vaguely reflect that. If we were talking about Lost Highway it would be a different story.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I forgot to mention to Moni that I linked to the Hoberman Voice review and the review in the NYT, both of which are freely available online. I didn't mess with your citations other than to add the link to the article title. If there are other articles which might be freely available online but are not linked I can run through and check for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. I had to revert the NYT ref because it required a login. The NYT does that magically without any apparent reason. I've had to go back on a couple of my articles and turn online NYT citations to paper ones. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well isn't it still better to have the link too? The citation is the same, it's just that folks who have a NYT login (which is free) or are willing to take 30 seconds to create one can view the actual article. It seems to me we would want the full paper cite and the link to the web version. I guess I've never really thought about it before, but there are so many free news services which require a login and it seems a shame not to link to them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADREF: "If the link was merely a 'convenience link' to an online copy of material that originally appeared in print, and an appropriate substitute cannot be found, remove the link but keep the citation." — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but New York Times article links (as of the last year or so) basically never go dead, which is why I think it's good to link to them. All you have to do is create a login to view many of their articles, but that is the case for the Washington Post, the LA Times, and really just about every major newspaper in the U.S. that I'm aware of (I have logins at dozens of papers and create them without even thinking about it when I want to read a certain story). It's not an issue of dealing with dead references, it's that some people will not have a free account with the NYT when they click on the link. But many others will so the link will be useful to them, and those that don't have an account can easily create one (in about a minute). I see links to NY Times and WaPo articles all over Wikipedia so I don't know why it would be any different here. It does not make sense to not link to a page that is essentially permanently stable just because some folks won't take the trouble to register with the newspaper in question.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lately, citations are the first thing checked in FACs. If there are any linked citations that require logins, they'll tell the nominator to change them. It's maddening, because there's no way really to learn how to do it all before you nominate something. I never feel like I know what I'm doing with citations because rules change constantly, and different editors have different preferences. Watching two editors argue about what format is correct during the FAC isn't uncommon. The citation format I'm using now may be completely different in 6 months. I dread the day I have to change citations in the articles I nominated where they number 117 or 122. Today, at least, login sites aren't allowed... --Moni3 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you would obviously know and thanks for passing that on, but I must say that is completely insane. I would imagine it would be quite simple to put a note in the ref that says "login required" after the link if that is so important - then folks would know what to expect. By including a link you at least make it easy for some readers to check the original source, whereas by not including it it's not easy for anyone to look at the original source. I don't what the rationale for that is but would love to know. Anyhow obviously we should play by the rules so I'll make sure not to link to anything that requires a login.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)