Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)/Archive 2

Characters
I saw the changes made my Jv821, and the Characters section I think should be reverted for aesthetic purposes alone. I think the bolded names are enough to mark the characters. Plus, it looks like the bullet points don't allow text wrapping around the image (that is now placed up near Betty for some reason?), which looks very bad on my browser. I think maybe Jv821 joined the paragraphs to keep the margins consistent with the bullets, but Betty and Rita sections are too long without a break in them. I know someone is going to request that they be separated somehow. So, I don't want to revert everything you did in this section, Jv821, but please take this into consideration. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about adding between passages about each character?  It provides a degree of separation without resorting to bullets or subsectioning. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, why not? I checked the MOS for commentary about when and when NOT to use horizontal lines, but there doesn't seem to be anything there about them. So, I put them in. They may come out by request, but from here on out, anything may change per the request of a reviewer. Thanks for the suggestion, Erik. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you are still seeking more alternatives, another kind of approach can be seen at No Country for Old Men (film).  It provides another way of improving readability. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot
Hi, Geometry Guy. I cut the plot down considerably, only including what was essential to understand the story without leading to any interpretation. You've added some details to it, that while may be accurate, may not be essential. I was going for simplicity. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand, and removed some stuff as well as adding some stuff. Everyone agrees that the dinner is the big scene in the film, and tha nametags of Betty and Diane are rather crucial facts on which most interpretations are based. My own view is that the plot section could be longer: for instance it doesn't mention the scene with the hitman, the prostitute and the pimp which conveys a lot of information. However, I completely see where you are coming from, in that Wikipedia discourages long plot sections, and we must avoid original research (I tried to remove some statements which might be challenged). Which details do you think need cutting after my edit? Geometry guy 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:FilmPlot says, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." You could take a little more liberty with it, perhaps.  Also, maybe you could break it up into parts like at Pulp Fiction (film). — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The emcee at Club Silencio isn't a magician. The song is described in detail in the Soundtrack section, and not really integral to the plot, although the announcement that everything there is an illusion is important. The reapparance of The Cowboy and Betty's aunt aren't integral to the plot (although to interpretation they are). I don't see Camilla as returning Adam's affections - interpreting it either way is interpretation. Camilla kissing Camilla is described in the Style section, and I think will only serve to confuse anyone who hasn't seen the film. (You have Adam and Melissa making an announcement.) The names of the waitresses, while to the interpretation of the Betty is Diane's dream is very important, is not so important to the plot as a whole, and only somewhat interesting to any other interpretation. The guy who collapsed at the counter I think is confusing without explaining why he is there, which can't be done without interpretation. Adding a disclaimer - sorry - I was on my way out the door when I wrote that. It sounds a bit terse. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points both, thanks. Apologies for the OR "Magician", but he isn't declared as an emcee either, so we need to find a standard way to describe him. I know from my own and others' experience that this is the first major scene which baffles first time viewers. After this, they either give up on the film or are fascinated. We have to say enough about this scene to reflect the transition.
 * There is a huge difficulty in the plot section in saying what is "integral to the plot". In this movie, "plot" and "interpretation of the plot" are extremely blurred. For instance, the fact that Diane is devastated at the dinner (by the attempted engagement announcement and the kiss between Melissa and Camilla) goes right to the heart of the plot, and it has to be mentioned, but mentioned without interpretation.
 * For another thing, is the plot section a plot description or a scene-by-scene description? In most movies, these are the same thing, but in this one, they aren't. At the moment, the plot section does not use a scene-based approach, and I respected that style in my edits (it does not anywhere say "In the next scene we see"). In a scene-by-scene description, the important scenes would be presented in the exact order of the film: the current presentation does not do this at all; indeed it would probably be unhelpful, both to someone who has seen the film and to someone who hasn't, to present the plot in exact scene order. One might think it is OR to describe the plot in a different order than the film, but there is also potential OR in presenting the plot in scene order: for example, the scene "where did the money come from" comes immediately after the scene which indicates where it came from, but that suggests an interpretation. It is a difficult balance. Geometry guy 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of thoughts: Plot sections for films like these are always tricky. Most plots are straightforward and do not need a scene-by-scene account.  I'm not saying this should be a scene-by-scene account, but obviously a different approach needs to be taken with this type of film.  In addition, resorting scenes would be OR if there is dispute about how they should be sorted.  Some films have flashbacks in which it's clear that the protagonist is a kid where for the rest of the film he is an adult.  The best approach is to basically describe what is seen on screen without worrying about interpretations.  For interpretations, certain scenes can be elaborated for clarification in sections outside the Plot section.  This is easier said than done, obviously. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 23:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, and I think there is a good compromise in this article: the plot is basically described in scene order, but details, such as the interleaving of the Betty-Rita story with the other character scenes, are not done in scene order, even though these interleavings are crucial to many interpretations. Geometry guy 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more confusing to have a scene-by-scene description, and I tend to lean more toward a skeletal description in the name of simplicity - particularly for this story. Other portions of the article describe the characters and style in much better detail, where interpretations can be cited so they make more sense.

For the dinner party scene, if you wanted to add more detail to that to reflect its impact, I would be ok with saying, Diane watches Camilla and Adam prepare for an announcement, and cries when watching them embrace. It would be POV to say she's humiliated or angry at this point. There's so much to individual interpretation about this film, that it really has to be only the action that is seen. Case in point: Geometry guy saw Camilla returning Adam's affection; I see Camilla at most pretending to like Adam so she can use him to further her career, and at least, wanting to be with Diane, but recognizing she would get farther with Adam. The second part of the film is much trickier because Lynch throws all kinds of weirdness toward the end. It can't all make sense in a plot description. We can't lose readers by the first section for putting in too much detail that may be there for Lynchian effect.

Ok I'm gonna stop here because I went out and had some drinks, and I'm not sure I'm making a lot of sense...--Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are, and I agree with you to some extent: for instance I also see Camilla's return of affection (by which I simply meant glances, smiles, kisses, embraces) to Adam as superficial, and we need to summarize that in a way that makes no interpretation. However, I don't agree that she wants to be with Diane: the fact that she kisses the other woman (played by Melissa George) is a key moment in this scene. It shows that Diane has been replaced as her female lover (although, again, we can't give that interpretation, even though it is extremely important to the chain of events which are set in motion by the dinner party).
 * Actually, I find the second part of the film (post Diane waking up) much less tricky than the first part: it seems complicated on a first viewing, but it is quite easy to restore the narrative order and put together a coherent story. In contrast, the first part of the movie, which seems to be a straightly told (albeit bizarre) tale, is much harder to interpret because it is so heavily loaded with symbolism. Geometry guy 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe. I saw Camilla kissing Camilla as a representation of Diane's fears that she's being rejected multiple times over, and not a reality. Anyone who social-climbs and clings to Adam for her career would not lean over and play tongue hockey with someone else in the middle of a dinner party and go completely unnoticed by everyone in the room (except for Diane). I do not view the last 1/3 of the film as a basis for the characters' realities at all. I didn't find the first part of the story very symbolic, really, more like what was confusing a mixture of Lynchian atmospheric weirdness and leftover ends from the pilot.


 * This is why I left the plot skeletal, relaying only what is necessary to understand the action. I can accept the changes made to the first portion of the plot, but below is what I think the second portion of the plot should read as:


 * Diane Selwyn (played by Naomi Watts) wakes up in her bed. She looks exactly like Betty, but she is portrayed as a lonely and depressed failed actress, in love with Camilla Rhodes (played now by Laura Elena Harring), who torments and rejects her. On Camilla's invitation, Diane attends a party at Adam's house on Mulholland Drive. Adam, who is a successful director, also appears to be in love with Camilla. Over dinner, Diane summarizes how she came to Hollywood and how she met Camilla at an audition for "The Sylvia North Story"; Adam and Camilla attempt to make an important announcement, but dissolve into laughter and kisses. Diane meets the bungling hit man in the diner, where she gives him Camilla's photo and a large amount of money.  The hit man tells Diane that when the job is done, she will find a blue key. Back at her apartment, in view of the key, she is terrorized by hallucinations. She runs screaming to her bed where she shoots herself.


 * I don't think the article should provide answers to the 10 clues, or any more information that assists in any particular interpretation of the film. Simplicity is what we should be reaching for, especially for the plot. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the plot section should only describe the action as it is presented. Melissa kissing Camilla is presented; both of them looking at Diane is presented; Diane's tears are presented. Concerning the 10 clues, we can rely on WP:NOR to guide how they are handled. Some are just drawing attention to things presented in the film: for instance you have not removed mention of "The Sylvia North Story". I don't think this detail has a place in a skeletal plot section, but I am unconvinced that such a skeletal plot section is what readers want. I would guess 95+ percent come to the article having seen the film, thinking "WTF?" :-)
 * So, for instance, as I mentioned above, almost all observers point out that it is easy to reconstruct the narrative order in the second part of the film by observing what Diane is wearing, and whether DeRosa's ashtray is on Diane's coffee table. This implicitly answers one of the clues (or at least most of it: this observation doesn't raise the idea that Diane's coffee cup looks like the ones at Winkies).
 * (Now to matters of interpretation, which I put in brackets, since they don't have bearing on how the plot section should go. First, at the dinner scene, the attitude of other guests towards Camilla is quite explicit in the exchange in Spanish about her involvement with Luigi. Adam's response is "Who cares?". Camilla isn't clinging in my view: she's using him, and is completely in control. The kiss with Melissa doesn't involve any tongue hockey.
 * Second, concerning symbolism in the first part, yes the symbolism is not at all apparent. I didn't notice it on the first couple of viewings. However, the many interpretations, whether you agree with them or not, draw attention to facts whose symbolic nature is hard to dismiss: the way the camera highlights the portrait of Beatrice Cenci on several occasions; the use of the dark pink and pale blue colours that Betty wears for almost all of the first part; the green and yellow Winkies diner; the extra who walks by carrying a long red rod in the hit man - prostitute scene; the way that the scenes have been edited so that the scenes not involving Betty and Diane supply answers to the questions they ask. These are a few of many: the meaning of such symbolism is open to interpretation (e.g., to what extent are there references to the Wizard of Oz?), but the fact that there is symbolism here is widely agreed. I know most of this material comes from an open-ended pilot, but Lynch is a very deliberate film-maker; he found a remarkable way to tie it all together with additional shoots and careful editing, and he is quoted as saying as much.) Geometry guy 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for leaving in the Sylvia North Story reference, I'm trying not to WP:OWN the article or dominate it more than I have. I would feel better without it in the plot, but I'm trying to find the line between quality and owning. If 95% of people come to the article after having seen it, they would have already seen what's in the film, and would benefit by the cited material in the rest of the article, not by a rehash of the plot. Those who have never seen the film would be completely confused by what I see is extra detail in the plot section. I read plot summaries for movies I don't want to see (slasher films, mostly), but yet I still want to know what the fuss is about. I hope at the least to urge people to see the film after reading the article, not be overwhelmed with confusion from the beginning.


 * What this article cannot do is present this film with any particular approach to symbolism and interpretation - this is what this scene means, for instance. This is why Lynch refuses to comment on it. He is a deliberate filmmaker, who presented a movie the way he wanted it, but he also wanted it to be ambiguous so it can be interpreted based on individual perception. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I take your point on the role of the plot section, but does the current plot section really show what the fuss is about to a new reader? For the second paragraph, I agree entirely apart from two things. First, I agree that we cannot favour any approach or symbolism, but we must say that symbolism and interpretations are significant in this film. Second I disagree that "he also wanted it to be ambiguous". He is quoted as saying that he likes it when viewers come to their own conclusions, but that isn't the same thing as wanting to make the film ambiguous. I don't find much ambiguity in the basic structure of the film, but there is a great deal of variation in audience response, both by those who have studied the film in depth and by first time viewers. That is what makes this such a great work. Geometry guy 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am reading, walking away, and re-reading and thinking on the plot. The following elements seem problematic to me, and potentially confusing for readers. If you feel these elements absolutely must stay, can we find a way to rewrite them?
 * 1st paragraph: sneaks into an apartment which has just been vacated by a red-headed older woman. I find this particularly confusing with references to Rita as a dark-haired woman in the same paragraph. Is the mention of Betty's aunt, or the red-haired woman, whoever she may be, absolutely essential to the understanding of the story?
 * 3rd paragraph: A casting agent takes her to the set of a film called "The Sylvia North Story", directed by Adam, where Camilla Rhodes gives an audition and Adam declares "This is the girl." By the time Betty gets there, Adam has already declared Camilla Rhodes is the girl. I'd like the verb tense of the sentence changed for accuracy. I also think we should break paragraphs after this sentence.
 * 3rd paragraph: A male performer explains in several languages that everything they see is an illusion; a woman performs a sad song, then collapses, although the song plays on. Would it suffice to take out "male"? Is there any particular reason that's in there? And the emcee/performer actually says what they hear is recorded, it's all an illusion, which is why I stated, "announced everything is an illusion" in my previous version. This is a matter of style for me, but to say that Rebekah del Rio performs a sad song is akin to saying the Declaration of Independence is ink on paper. While technically accurate, it bleeds the impact of the scene. At the same time, its effect cannot be done justice in the plot summary. That's why I left it out in my earlier rendition of the plot.
 * 4th paragraph: I still think the mention of The Cowboy and the red-haired woman in the transition is confusing. I think we need only one mention of Diane crying in this paragraph.

It seems nitpicky, but "brilliant prose" is a nebulous concept and quite difficult to attain. I'll be asking some of the most difficult reviewers I've ever worked with to look over this before it goes to FAC. They have busted my Wikinuts on previous articles, but the writing was vastly improved. --Moni3 (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph: it depends what you mean by "the understanding of the story"! The fact that the apartment is owned by an aunt figure is rather important to the understanding of the story. The fact that she has red hair is on a par with the Sylvia North reference: superficially it is unimportant, but red-headed women of a certain age are another symbol in the first part of the film (three others appear).
 * 3rd paragraph. Misremembered, I think. Betty arrives during Carol's performance of "Sixteen reasons I love you" and exchanges eye contact with Adam. Then Camilla's audition begins, during which Adam says "This is the girl", then Betty flees. Again symbolic: a connection is broken by Camilla Rhodes.
 * 3rd paragraph. Agreed, except I think we must mention the song.
 * 4th paragraph. It is confusing because the plot is confusing. We can't skip over significant events because they are confusing. Mentioning the crying twice is redundant: is there some way to describe her evident emotional distress at the end of the scene without OR? The film uses the crashing of dishes. Geometry guy 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "understanding of the story" is relative. I really hope not to open a bucket of worms by stating this, but what is cited as a reference I read, and while many take the interpretation that Betty is Diane's dream (and many take that for granted that everyone knows and agrees), I did not read in reliable secondary sources breakdowns of symbolism to the extent that you're referencing. I read it on Lost on Mulholland Drive, but I can't use that. And I tend to agree with Roger Ebert et al who think overanalyzation is unnecessary. I think a lot of symbolism you're citing: the painting, the red hair, for example, are coincidental to the pilot - as these were present a year before it was turned into the finished film. (I know Lynch revisits many of them in the feature film, but they are not as neatly tied up in my opinion as they seem to be in yours.) By including these symbols in the Plot and not mentioning them later in the article with citations, they become misnomers.
 * Who misremembered the order? I'll watch it again tonight (oh, darn) to confirm, but the order is Betty's audition, walking down the hall with the casting agent, cut to the Connie Stevens song, then Camilla Rhodes audition, Adam declares, "This is the girl", then Betty arrives for long locked gazes with Adam then runs away.
 * 4th paragraph issue with The Cowboy and the red-haired woman goes to my aforementioned point about not explaining them later in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely: I am only calling this stuff symbolism on the talk page, and I am trying to resist giving interpretations even here! We can only break down symbolism to the extent that reliable secondary sources do, but we can still state facts about what happens in the film, whether they are symbolic or not. I don't think we should pretend the plot is straightforward, when it evidently isn't. I don't have a strong view on how neatly Lynch managed to work symbolism from the pilot into the feature film, but he was evidently very satisfied by the result (as quoted in the "filming" section). The observation that symbols like the Cowboy have been overanalysed (and I completely agree that they have) does not take away from the observation that they are symbolic.
 * For the order, you may have misremembered because after "This is the girl", Adam and Betty exchange glances again, only sadder ones. If you watch the whole thing, rather than just this scene, check out the way the camera moves to highlight the painting on more than one occasion. The symbolism is already there in the pilot, where the different narratives are already being woven together in Lynchian style, even without the idea that this is Diane's dream. I was particularly startled by the scene with Gene the pool cleaner: I find the use of the colours Betty wears (pool chairs, paint tins) very difficult to dismiss as coincidental. But one of the great things about Lynch is the diversity of responses that his films generate. Geometry guy 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I agree that Adam and Betty exchange long glances, sad or not, but my issue was that Adam chose Camilla before Betty got there. I'll continue to ruminate on this. I asked VanTucky specifically to review this for GA, and he agreed. He's so far the most challenging GA reviewer I've encountered. So the review may take place sooner than I anticipated. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's thorough, that's good. I believe Adam and Betty first exchange glances during the previous audition; they exchange glances again after Adam chooses Camilla. The mood is different on the two occasions. Geometry guy 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tidbits

 * I asked BrighterOrange to run his dashbot over the page, btw.
 * I would like to make the quote boxes colored, and I don't know how to do that. Are there instructions somewhere on how to make pretties? --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have been dashing a bit: I hope dashbot will fix what I missed. Geometry guy 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote box2 - looks like you can choose the colour for this one. If you don't like that, there maybe others in Category:Quotation_templates. -- Beloved Freak  22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks BelovedFreak! --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Minor issues
I've had another read through the article, and (finally) looked at other comments on this talk page. I was curious about the argument about whether the article reads like a thesis or not. I don't think the distinction was really pinned down. For me, the distinction was drawn out nicely by reading Jbmurray's excellent essay on using Wikipedia as part of an educational assignment: "an encyclopedia entry should not be the place to develop an argument. This is the most fundamental difference between a more traditional essay assignment and wikipedia."

So, does the article develop an argument? No, I don't think so. It does not tell the reader what to think of the film, and is splendidly indifferent on the possible interpretation, as well as giving due weight to those which are more prominent.

That's not to say the treatment couldn't be improved, but I can only see very minor issues. Here are a few: Anyway, this is all pretty minor, and reading the article again was a real pleasure! Geometry guy 14:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I found it a bit of a digression to discuss Watts' early acting experiences. There may be a place for this, but it is a bit odd to do it in the "Interpretations and allusions": it seems to suggest a link between her experiences and her interpretation. That sounds like advancing an argument to me, unless such an analysis can be attributed to a reliable source.
 * The first sentence of "Romantic content" seems to offer an analysis of the analysis. Can we really separate those who found the scenes "sincere" from those who were "titillated"? Unless the latter is being used to suggest "gratuitous", there isn't necessarily a conflict between the two reactions: one can find the scenes moving and erotic, sad and erotic, sad and unerotic, unnecessary and unerotic, and all sorts of other combinations.
 * He "recognizes that real art comes from classic filmmaking, as Lynch cast, thereby paying tribute to, veteran actors Ann Miller, Lee Grant, and Chad Everett." That appears to advance an argument, unless this analysis is in the source.
 * Why is a Justin Theroux quote paraphrased using the word "[heck's]"? If it is to omit an obscenity, note that Wikipedia is not censored.
 * I couldn't find reference to the observation/analysis that Rita is Diane's projection of an ideal Camilla, which I'm pretty sure can be found in reliable sources.
 * Similarly (although I'm less sure if this is in RS's), I think there could be reference to Betty's changes as the film progresses: she starts as innocent and naive, but by the end of the first part, she is lying to cover for Rita and breaking into an apartment.


 * Watts early experiences go to her interpretation of what the film means. I don't think it advances any argument other than it's a film whose interpretation is based in personal approach.
 * I had some material in the Romantic content section from other sources that took a more lurid posture on the lesbian content, but I removed it on the suggestion of another editor. I wrote that introductory/topic sentence more to introduce the quote from Heather Love about the media reaction to the film. Personally, a lot of that was really hard for me to read. What do you suggest here?
 * Real art comes from classic filmmaking and the veteran actors was from the source.
 * Justin Theroux's outtake is verbatim from the source. I don't know what it replaced: hell or fuck, but I copied it exactly as it looks.
 * Are you referring to Rita's character description? That should be in her character analysis and it should be cited.
 * Betty's changes: I can look to find more information (in fact I know I read it in at least one source that Betty lies about Rita to Coco), but that sort of melds into the issues presented in the Character sections about identity. It's not presented in the film that Betty in the beginning is honest to the core, just really naive. More sources presented Betty as a perky Nancy Drew, so breaking into an apartment to solve Rita's mystery may not be out of character for her. But I can expand this point in her section in Characters if it's a big deal. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick replies! Replies to replies :-)... "It's a film who's interpretation is based in personal approach": my question is, who says that Watts' interpretation is based on her personal experiences? Does Watts say this? Does the source say this? If so, the article should say so; if not, this is speculation.
 * For the "Romantic content" section, I suggest an opening sentences that simply says different critics have responded in various ways to the relationship, without actually describing in what ways. The Heather Love quote is difficult to handle, I agree. Something could be added at the beginning of that paragraph, or the first sentence could be reworked a bit to introduce the quote. If I get any more concrete ideas, I'll let you know.
 * Next two points: very good. Next one, yes, Rita's character description would be a good place for this, if it can be sourced. Thanks for offering to look into the Betty character development: it isn't a big deal, but the expansion you suggest sounds good to me, and much better than my simplistic analysis. Geometry guy 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More random order. Oops, this cited reference: Instead of punishing Camilla for such public humiliation, as is suggested by Diane's conversation with the bungling hit man, one critic views Rita as the vulnerable representation of Diane's desire for Camilla. is under Camilla Rhodes, not Rita. I can move it, I suppose, but it applies to both characters and flows better in Camilla's paragraph.


 * I'm going to go over my sources for the personal interpretation point, and I'll work on rewriting the introductory sentences for the Romantic content section. As for Betty's character development, the majority of information I read addressed her issues of identity melding into Rita's. The second paragraph that is about the audition is the primary example of her hidden nature, but I can add a sentence, perhaps, about her changing personality... Let me see what I can find. --Moni3 (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Restart indent:

Naomi Watts' full quote from Interview magazine: "Everyone's got a different interpretation of it. But I had to make something up for myself so I could make some solid coherent choices. (Quote in article already) The hardest part for me was playing Betty, because she was less naturalistic than Diane. I needed to make her human somehow. When I see her now, I go, "Oh, my God, you're a psycho." But there were places I tried to show that she had deeper dimensions, for example, when she turns detective." --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I read through my sources, which helped shore up some other sentences that I felt needed help, but other than providing the full quote from Watts, above, I'm struggling to provide changes for Betty, and how to change the sentences for the Romantic content section. The only thing I could think of was to add "However," in front of the quote from Heather Love. I can add the treatment by less serious sources that proves more sensationalist reaction to the content (this photo should be enough, in my opinion), although I understand the comment from Bigtimepeace that rejected the appropriateness of these sources. If you have any concrete ideas, please share them. --Moni3 (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work on the article. The Watts quote is very interesting, but doesn't support what the article currently says about where her interpretation comes from. Anyway, to get out of "I'm the reviewer, please fix this" mode, I spent some time looking at the sources which are online and found two which contain the Rita interpretation, and one with a hint at Betty's character development. The latter is Variety (Todd McCarthy), and the quote is "you just know that, with all the sinister goings-on in the Lynchian demimonde of Los Angeles, this girl isn't going to remain sweet, guileless and uncorrupted for long."
 * The analysis of Rita can be found at rollingstone.com: "Harring... makes Rita a ravishing blank slate on which Betty draws her fantasies." In the second Salon link, there is also "It's obviously a dream of a world in which her relationship with Camilla was different -- a place where Camilla loves her and is dependent on her."
 * I hope these help. Geometry guy 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I re-read those reviews. What I was envisioning instead was a source that tracks the changes Betty goes through. Although, we can't really say that they're changes since she's new to the audience. She's chirpy, she likes Rita, she starts to lie for Rita, she goes to this audition where she turns from perky to pseudo-dominatrix apparently at the drop of a chord, then she breaks into an apartment. I think it's established in the article that some folks think she's too good to be true.


 * And both Rita's character description includes a "blank slate" reference, and the Watts quote in Interpretations likens Rita to a doll that Betty controls, so that has already been introduced. I suppose the question is always - how much proof does the article really need? Some claims are nuttier or more likely to be challenged than others. I don't think these claims are that nutty, however. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, they aren't that nutty, but I find myself losing a grip on what a reliable source is for this article, see the next section. Geometry guy 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This probably doesn't have a lot to do with improving the article, but is a reflection on my experience in reading the online sources for the article. In short, I find myself questioning what makes a source reliable, when in fact these so-called reliable sources are full of factual errors. Disclaimer: some of these factual errors may be inaccuracies in my memory, but it is pretty unlikely that they all are.
 * 1) Multiple sources refer to the character played by Richard Green (the performer who says that this is all an illusion) as the emcee, and one even says he introduces Rebekah del Rio. He is not: in the credits he is referred to as "The Magician" (so I retract my earlier OR apology). He disappears in a puff of smoke, and the character played by Geno Silva ("Emcee" in the credits) introduces Rebekah del Rio.
 * 2) Multiple sources state that the hitman says he will leave the key on Diane's coffee table. He doesn't say that: he says he will leave it in the place he told her. Some of these sources then infer that Diane has only just seen the blue key when she wakes up. There is nothing in the narrative which supports this.
 * 3) More than one (e.g. Salon) refer to noone answering the final phone in the chain phonecall, but that is inaccurate: the scene is cut, so we don't know whether someone answers the phone or not.
 * 4) Why do so many sources refer to the film's many "extended lesbian scenes"? There are two, right? And the first one is not that long, the second even shorter. I guess this is part of what Heather Love is saying.
 * 5) The second Salon article, for all its early insight, is full of factual errors. "The hit guy tries to strangle her" - really? "Then he shoots a janitor who wanders by. Then he shoots the janitor's vacuum cleaner and starts a fire, which sets off alarms and sprinklers." Wanders by? Sprinklers? Misquote of the Cowboy "If you do what you're told, you'll see me one more time,"... "If you don't do what you're told, you'll see me two more times." That should be "If you do good", and "If you do bad", right? The Sylvia North Story is not directed by Paul Bruckner, but Bob Brooker. In the Silencio scene, it misidentifies the emcee, and then says "Up in the balcony, the pair begin crying." They aren't in the balcony, the blue haired woman is. At the very end, it states "The couple laugh maniacally." after Diane shoots herself. No, her gunshot silences them (presumably because they are figments of her imagination). I'm stunned by some of the naiveness of the analysis in this source. Referring to Betty and Diane, it says "If you look closely, you see they're the same actress." Now, for most people, the fact that this is the same actress is what seriously disorients them about the film. Finally, this source has an abysmal description of the film's origins as a TV pilot.
 * 6) Rollingstone.com states that after the jitterbug intro, we see "a fever dream, with a woman twisting and turning in bed." No we don't. We see a bed and a pillow, which is probably a point of view shot of someone (Diane, methinks) falling asleep. It also says "'No hay banda,' says the sleazy MC (Geno Silva)". Wrong.
 * 7) Variety describes the pool cleaner as a gardener.
 * 8) The Village Voice says "Where did Rita's suitcase full of money come from? What is the significance of the blue key in her pocket?" Suitcase? Pocket? These things were both found in her handbag!
 * 9) Multiple sources refer to a "dwarf" in the film, because they know Michael Anderson is a dwarf. But is the character really portrayed as a dwarf?
 * 10) Glenn Kenny appears to have absolutely no idea what the film is about. Why is it useful to quote him?
 * 11) The anthropoetics source does not make any glaring mistakes and has a reasonable analysis, but what makes it a reliable source?
 * 12) The Guardian summary of reliable film critics is, frankly, embarrassing. Roger Ebert picks the more implausible of two explanations offered by the Salon article for the older couple, and most of the other reviewers hide behind a "there is no interpretation" facade.

Many of these sources have their origins in reviews in which the reviewer saw the film only once and had to provide an article on it. Some of the articles have been improved with time. Indeed, there is much that is credible in these sources. The Salon article, while incorrect on detail, is coherent when it considers the bigger picture.

I ought to know what makes a reliable source, but still I find myself struggling to provide answers as to why these are reliable sources, when they get so many things wrong. I could retreat under a blanket of WP:NOR, I suppose, but instead I will just raise the question. Shouldn't we dismiss inaccurate sources as unreliable? Why is Salon.com more reliable than mulholland-drive.net? In contrast to the numerous inaccuracies in reliable sources, I have found no factual errors in Alan Shaw's essay. Sure, he overanalyzes and overinterprets, and some of his deductions will make many readers chuckle, but if his detailed analysis contains a misquote or a factual error, I have not found it. If anyone has, please let me know. Otherwise, why is his essay not a reliable source, when all of these factually incorrect sources are? Again, I think I know some responses to this question, but they leave me very unsatisfied, so better answers would be much appreciated. Geometry guy 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I got down to brass tacks adding references to the article that became my first FA, I was horrified at the sloppy inaccuracies about the topic. Much of it was on the internet, but I was more astounded at what was in print. It just so happened that I chose a WP:BLP for my first, so I wrote to my subject, asking her what was accurate since I just didn't know. I have since grown more accustomed to finding contradictions and outright false information and I find it a minor annoyance. Sure, some of the inaccuracies in reviews came about for writers who saw the film once or twice and had to meet a deadline. I figured when I was writing that first article that a good editor has to consciously include what is accurate and leave out what is not, just like choosing which quotes best fit the point of the section. I read an analysis that presented as fact that Diane is a prostitute and a drug addict, (perhaps referencing the woman earlier in the film, maybe - who knows) and The Cowboy is her pimp...WTF?


 * Perhaps your question is better suited for the WP:RS page, because I don't think I can answer it sufficiently. Inaccuracies in sources will inevitably prove to be all over the place, not limited to film articles, or even articles on popular culture. It's frightening to imagine them being in science or medicine sources, but I imagine they're there, too. Your question goes to the nature of shared knowledge, even the function and role of Wikipedia itself. --Moni3 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to some extent I was just letting off steam, and wasn't asking anyone in particular, but it is kind of you to comment in response to my rant! I don't know whether WP:RS can help me, as I know the official answers: maybe my own attitude during the WP:ATT debate can. I was pro WP:ATT, and one of my arguments was that Wikipedia is primarily about knowledge rather than truth: WP is as much about what is believed to be true (by "reliable sources") as about what is actually true. Still, a cold fact is a cold fact, and I don't think we should propagate information, however widely believed, which can be refuted by a fact. Do you think this means we can call the Richard Green character a magician? Are the credits of the movie a cold fact? Is it original research to say that the reliable sources which refer to him as an emcee are wrong?
 * (Complete aside and probably OR. Concerning the prostitute thing, it is outrageous to present such a theory as fact, and I've no idea where the Cowboy-pimp idea comes from, but I do understand the prostitution suggestion. As I'm sure you know well, one hint of this is the chain call leading to the red lampshade. Another is something I've mentioned already: the ordering of the scenes, which isn't entirely random. Interestingly, as I hinted on your talk page, it seems that the hitman-prostitute-pimp scene did not come immediately before the "Where did the money come from?" scene in the pilot: this is one of the changes Lynch made to tie the multiple threads of the pilot together. So, the analysis goes, where did Diane get the money to pay for a hitman? And this connection offers answer. Well, whatever, it is clear that Diane's life is troubled: how troubled is a matter for interpretation.) Geometry guy 19:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to MatthewEdwards
I'm not sure how to reply to your comments in the format they're in in the peer review page, since I'm barely able to edit what I do.


 * You may be able to catch our extended discussion above about what goes in the plot and what doesn't. There may be confusing elements, but I don't think it advisable to clarify some of the confusion because it is not shown implicitly in the film. The following elements cannot be clarified for that reason:
 * Why does Betty flee before she can meet Adam?
 * "Upon returning to the apartment to open the box, Betty disappears, and Rita unlocks it and it falls to the floor." Disappears how, or to where?
 * "The woman with the red hair investigates the sound, but nothing is there." What sound? Where did she come from? Didn't she vacate the apartment?


 * The comparison to Sunset Boulevard was, in fact, questioned in a separate peer review.
 * The 3 references to Nancy Drew indicate that multiple reviewers compared the character to Drew.
 * I've changed them, but is it really MOS to have to list references in numerical order?
 * Multiple critics and analysts referred to Rita as a femme fatale, and nearly all of them described her as dark and beautiful. I had to paraphrase, but I can cite - well, all of them, I guess.
 * The [heck] is verbatim from the source. I wasn't censoring. The source was.
 * The (thinks it) and (and Betty) are verbatim from the source. I did not add them.
 * I intend to bring the article to WP:LOCE. I went through the article to make sure all ellipses were ...
 * In the Performance section, it lists Joel Coen as the other director Lynch shared the Cannes award with.
 * I don't know how to make the table widths the same, actually. I stole those tables from Pulp Fiction.

I appreciate the time you took to read and review the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I think the formatting got messed up because I put "Comments from " instead of square brakets to link to my name by accident!
 * The numerical order of references is something that is often requested at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. It makes sense, and if it's not mentioned on the MOS page I think it should be. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, so I'm going off to investigate! -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

B-class only?
This article is clearly better than B-class - it's approaching FA. I say A-class and GA nomination. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is already nominated for GA. For A-Class, ask at WT:WikiProject Films: they have an WikiProject_Films/Review process, but I don't know how active it is, or whether they would only consider GAs for A-Class review. Of course, I agree with you that the article is excellent. Geometry guy 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, Aquillyne, you are my best friend now. I have asked the powerfully intelligent, remarkably handsome, and painfully witty VanTucky to review the article for GA because he's thorough. But I did that 2 weeks ago or so. I wonder if I should give Mr. Universe a nudge. He just went through an RFA and is newly wielding a mop... --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nudge gladly accepted, though I'm dubious about the new title and the compliments (you baldfaced flatterer!). I'll get to it forthwith, sorry for the wait. Van Tucky 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article review
Hello. I'll be doing the Good Article review for this article. I've read through Production history, and everything looks really good so far. The only major problem I see is that Image:Mulholland.png needs a specific fair-use rationale for this article. Other than that, there are some comma and minor grammar problems, but I don't mind fixing those myself when I'm done with the review. I'll continue the review tomorrow. Nikki 311  03:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale added. Let me know what else you need. --Moni3 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've finished reading over the article and did minor copy editing. The article meets all of the Good Article criteria:


 * 1) Well written?: Pass
 * 2) Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3) Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5) Article stability? Pass
 * 6) Images?: Pass

There is only one issue I have. The following sentence seems awkward to me: Her guilt and regret are evident in her suicide, and throughout the clues that continue to surface in the first portion of the film that something is dark and wrong in Betty and Rita's world. I've read it a couple of times and still don't quite understand its meaning. I think maybe a word is missing in the second part of the sentence, as it is an incomplete thought. Fix that, and I'll pass the article. Nikki 311  00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Changed the sentence. See if that makes any more sense. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. That makes much more sense. I'm sorry about changing the quotes, I was trying to avoid doing that, but I guess I missed a couple. Congrats to everyone who worked on the article. It is now a Good Article! Nikki  311  03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review. Moni3 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cast photo – Betty
Does this caption for the photo of Betty and Irene need a source: "Betty is bright and optimistic, in contrast with Watts' portrayal of Diane in the latter part of the film."? Could this be considered WP:OR or can it stand as is? Jim Dunning | talk  15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's set right next to a paragraph with multiple citations that back up the claim. --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh. I read too quickly and missed the "palpably frustrated and depressed woman" bit. The Holden NYT piece seems to cover the contrast part fine then, but he describes Diana as a "hardened ... vixen". Wouldn't a description of her (in the article) of something like "hardened shrew" instead be a closer characterization of Holden's take? Or is it covered in the Ridgway or Johnson treatments?
 * I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. Are you asking the description of Diane's character be altered? Or change the caption in the Betty photo?


 * What I've had to do in this article is find the fine line between citing every comment and accurately reporting. Citations after every sentence are distracting, so I've paraphrased the commentary about the characters from what I've read. For instance, multiple reviewers describe Betty is perky, plucky, optimistic, naive, and bright, and reviews describe Rita as beautiful, lost and confused. So in order to make it read well, I've paraphrased their descriptions then back them up with a quote, then more in-depth analysis. I've been very deliberate about POV issues, making sure that no undue weight is given to any interpretation of the film's meaning. I allow the analyses to offer interpretations and the article to describe what is seen in the film. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Theories clarification
The poisonous valentine section opens with, "Regardless of the proliferation of theories, movie reviewers note that no single explanation satisfies all of the loose ends and questions that arise from the film." Wouldn't this be better if it said, "The proliferation of theories confirms reviewers' comments that no single ..."? That aside, however, can the statement even be made since I don't see a supporting source or subsequent statements for the assertion that "no single explanation satisfies". It seems orphaned. Maybe something was inadvertently deleted in some editing? Jim Dunning | talk  16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Be careful what you copy edit. I have 5 articles I'm working on about the Everglades and you may be recruited. On to your question: I prefer the sentence leading in from "Regardless..." as it connects the previous section and offers flow between them. I think the claim can be made, and I think the cited information does support the claim since there are many theories offered for the interpretation.    Right now I think the cited claims in the Interpretations section, particularly The Guardian citations, and the quote following the sentence in question backs up the sentence. I'm writing an article now, but this is up for FA. If I need to focus on backing up that claim, I can, but I don't think it's out in left field. --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

National Society of Film Critics
I think that awards section should definetly include awards of the highest critics body (National Society of Film Critics) in the US (it won best film and actress), and also it should be mentioned that a site "They Shoot Films Don't They", which aggregates critic lists and such, named Mulholland Drive as the second best reviewd film of the century. Regards, --Harac (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sorry to take so long to get back to you. Does the National Society of Film Critics have a website? While the NSFC awards should be included, all the awards in the article are cited. There were many more awards listed at imdb.com, for instance, but I could not find a reliable source for them, and imdb does not qualify since it is user created.


 * I also checked out the website for theyshootpictures.com. On the About page, here, is this statement: "Who are we and why They Shoot Pictures, Don't They? Just a couple of film lovers based in Adelaide, Australia. TSPDT is a completely hobby-driven, non-profit enterprise which merely aims to provide a reasonable cinematic resource for fellow enthusiasts. Rest assured, we spend a lot more time watching films than maintaining this website! Additionally, please note that we are computer/internet cave people. Please do not email us any technical questions!" This gives me problems with the site as a reliable source and notability. I would actually love to include the mention of Mulholland Dr. as the 2nd best film of the millennium, but it has to adhere to wiki policies. I appreciate your suggestions, though. Please don't let this discourage you from making them. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Title
Why is the title of this article not "Mulholland Dr. (film)" as opposed to "Mulholland Drive (film)," is there some Wikipedia convention about titling I don't know about? 131.215.170.228 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion was the first for the article back in 2004 and addresses the title of the film. Though I wrote most of this article, I'm ok with the title either way. --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I going deaf? Selwyn or Selwood?
I managed to miss this movie on release, only seeing it for the first time yesterday. I would have sworn Diane's surname was Selwood. The word is mentioned a number of times, and it always sounded like Selwood to me. But here it's Selwyn; there are no relevant ghits for "Mulholland Drive Selwood", but stacks for "Mulholland Drive Selwyn", so it seems I've misheard (not just once but a few dozen times). Is it possible her name varied in different countries' releases? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's definetly Selwyn on my DVD. Still, no harm in watching it again. ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Diane Selwyn's dream
A sad and interesting dedication to Jennifer Syme. Silencio_ Moshe-paz (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rita Hayworth connection
I feel like Rita re-naming herself after the poster of Rita Hayworth is more than mere coincidence. In real life, Rita Hayworth was born Rita Cansino - she was half Spanish and spent much of her childhood in Tijuana - and after a dismal career at Fox, where she was pigeonholed into minor and stereotyped Spanish/Mexican characters, she signed with Columbia, at which point she took her Irish mother's maiden name, had her hair lightened, and had her hairline altered via electrolysis - all to assume an arguably more "Hollywood-safe" Anglo look, name, and persona that all but erased her Spanish background. I would guess that David Lynch had this piece of history in mind - the parallels are clear not only in the character of Rita but in the entire film's theme of erasing one's true self in the name of "making it." Thoughts? Way to include?--24.90.252.208 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Find a credible source or two who support this conjecture so it is not Wikipedia editor synthesis and it would be a great addition to the Development section. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Best film of the Decade

 * I would include this myself but the article uses citation that I don't know how it works. Any way (should be included in references section): Los Angeles Film Critics Association has named it the best film (the thing cited in article is different), Film Comment had named it the best film.--Harac (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding sooner. Your additions are fine and I thank you for updating the article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this should be mentioned in the intro in some way... maybe by reference to the text bellow? --Harac (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Like what? --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "It is seen by many as the best film of its decade (citation needed)" --Harac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Harac, I see your edits and appreciate adding relevant information to the article. I have some questions as I have not read the source (yet...srs...I am still a bit obsessed with this film and will read just about anything on it). Because this is a featured article, the same scrutiny that was applied to the article while it was being reviewed for FA should be applied to additions to it to maintain its featured status.


 * Can you define what cinephilia is, or what "nighmare of cinephilia" means? Is this Dillon's own term?
 *  In the interpretation by the film historian Steven Dillon, Diane's fantasy had turned the unnamed woman in the apartment 12 into Rita, a transformation that is seen moments after the woman collects her last few things. Is this Diane's ex-roommate who came to collect her dishes and stuff? If so, she has not yet been introduced, and she is not that significant a character, so I don't think placing her in the plot or characters section would benefit the article. There is a way to do this, though. How about: According to film historian Steven Dillon, Diane transitions a former roommate into Rita. Following a tense scene where the roommate collects her remaining belongings, Rita appears in the apartment, smiling at Diane.
 * I copy edited a sentence. Please check that I did not alter accuracy of the author's intent. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please edit anything I write, since English is not my first language anyway.

--Harac (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dillon writes the whole section ("Mulholland Drive, Cahiers du cinéma, and the Horror of Cinephilia") on that issue. Cinephilia is a love of cinema, obviously, and for Dillon "Mulholland Drive is an embodied representation of cinephilia that provides a critical alternative to romantic cinephilia," and thus "Mulholland Drive provides not only a self-righteous and ferocious critique of Hollywood, in which the producers of movies are seen as no less than organized crime ﬁgures, but also the opposite, a critique of cinephilia." It might be for the best to cutout the whole section.
 * I had put that reference to "unnamed woman from apartment 12" to give an example of an unorthodox interpretation of who Rita is. Normally, it is thought (A. Taubin etc.) that Rita is an alter-ego of Camilla (L. E. Harring), but Dillon thinks that the unnamed woman who comes to collect her stuff and who is not formally introduced, and thus exists on the margins of the film, is actually Diane's lover and (fantasy figure) Rita(/Camilla) (I personally never thought of that). Your rewording is fine, although it seems to come to the same conclusion.
 * Its fine.

Soundtrack edits
Harac, in these edits, , , you added some info to the Soundtrack section that appears as this paragraph:

''Reviewers noted that Badalamenti's ominous score, also described as his "darkest yet", contributed to the sense of mystery as the film opens on the dark-haired woman's limousine, that contrasted with the bright, hopeful tones of Betty's first arrival in Los Angeles, with the score "acting as an emotional guide for the viewer". The film music journalist Daniel Schweiger had remarked that Badalamenti's contribution to the score alternates from the "dense, languid string writing" to "barely audible audio feedback" to "dinner party jazz", and that this "helps compliment the theme of corrupted dreams that is central to Mulholland Drive". ''

Using the source information from here and here, I don't find these quotes searching for "darkest yet", "emotional guide for the viewer", "dense, languid string writing", or "theme of corrupted dreams". Can you double-check to make sure these are the sources you used to write this? If so, it should be reverted because the cites do not match the quotes. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I already have before I saw your remark. The original scholar was a bit careless with her citations.--Harac (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reply. The links provided do not show the quotes in the article. Shurley, Neil (7 Jan 2002). "Mulholland Drive [CD review]", on Tim Curran and Lukas Kendall, eds, Film Score Monthly (LA), which is here, does not say "darkest yet" or "acting as an emotional guide for the viewer". Likewise, Schweiger, Daniel (September 2001). "The Mad Man and His Muse," Film Score which is here does not use "dense, languid string writing", "barely audible audio feedback", or "helps compliment the theme of corrupted dreams that is central to Mulholland Drive". Where do these quotes come from? --Moni3 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, your first comment was at 20:52, at 20:58 I had already noticed that and corrected it, at 21:06 I see this posted in discussion, at 21:15 you have still not seen the history of the article. Good perception, though. --Harac (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I see in this diff that one source has been changed and the quotes from the second have been. The rest of your comment is even more confusing, however. It would help very much if you left edit summaries in your article edits to help with differentiating what you're doing when you make multiple edits to the same section. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As S. Plath would say: Ach, du. --Harac (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations II
Moni, is there a particular reason why you have removed the original source for Pascal Couté quote? --Harac (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the David Roche citation not source the sentence about Pascal's perspective? Erik (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A passage in the David Roche article actually is the same sentence that was added to this article. I reworded the sentence and sourced it to the citation, the Roche article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

External Videos/Audios
I have just seen for the first time, on article on "Themes in Avatar", the inclusion of external videos/audios boxes in an article, and I find them to be very useful. I think they could/should also be introduced in this article since there are a lot of videos on YouTube on production of the film with interviews with Lynch and actors etc. At least one should be chosen and imbeded. --Harac (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you are suggesting a YouTube video be embedded into the article, or the video itself, from which a snippet was lifted and posted to YouTube, should be embedded. At any rate, it would have to be a public domain video or one for which a very strong fair use rationale could be used, such as one of significant historical importance or one for which words would be inadequate in summarizing. If it is merely interviews with Lynch and the actors, I do not think it would be allowed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I had something of this sort in mind:


 * In that specific case, it is owned by the Charlie Rose Show, or Charlie Rose, LLC. Images and video are very difficult to use if they are not in the public domain because Wikipedia is basically placing images and such *in* the public domain. The images used in this article are all non-free, still shots justified with cited information as integral to the understanding of the concepts in the article: lighting differences, which can be summarized but not really understood without an image, Rita's assignation of her identity, the lighting and shot of Michael J. Anderson, all noted by reliable sources to by characteristic of Lynch's style or something to be understood about this film in particular. If it's a video of Lynch speaking about Mulholland Dr. in some way, it can be used as a source, but I'm 99% sure we cannot embed the video if it's not in the public domain.
 * Image policy is difficult to get used to and understand. If you would like further clarification, I would direct you to User:Elcobbola, who I ask for advice on if I can use images in featured articles. User:Moonriddengirl also has a distinct interest in copyright issues, but specifically as they refer to plagiarism and copyright violation of text. I don't know her experiences with images and video. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Plot (ending)
In the "Plot" section the film seems to end with Diane's suicide, while it actually does not. The film continues with the smoke filling the room and some sort of hallucinogenic images of the being from behind Winkie's and Diane and Camilla, and ends in Club Silencio with the blue haired woman saying: "Silencio". I have noticed that the meaning of these images have been debated to some length in film theory, hence its not insignificant. Thus, I think a sentence on this should be included, although I am not sure how to explain it exactly. --Harac (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this action that pertains to the resolution of the plot? The plot section should address what can be seen on screen to tell the story. Some elements of the film are so vague and cryptic that they're debated endlessly about what they mean. It does not mean that they are propelling forces of the story. This is why the plot section ends with Diane's suicide. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. After I first saw it for a long time I thought it ended with that scene. Only when I returned to it did I notice that it does go on for several minutes, and that it irritates the "clear" meaning of the suicide. --Harac (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot revisit
Hi, never done this in wiki so apologies if i get something wrong. I just wanted to mention that something crucial has been left out of the end of the plot summary, here: "Back at her apartment, in view of the key, she is terrorized by hallucinations". These are not just random nightmarish visions; in fact the hallucinations are of the two smiling elderly characters who give her alter ego a ride from the airport at the beginning of the film. In my opinion, mention of this is crucial in unpacking the meaning of the movie. I'm surprised not to have seen this mentioned here or anywhere else, in fact it was the thing that totally blew my mind the first time I saw this movie (which I consider the pinnacle of the art of cinema). 95.118.11.132 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. In a film of this nature, to stay within the bounds of encyclopedic writing, to stay neutral and not espouse a point of view about what is actually happening in the film, the Plot section is necessary to be written to describe only what can be seen. Interpretation needs to be left out of the plot summary and critics and scholars should be the reliable sources from which we gather opinion about what the film actually means. It's our job to present their ideas in as balanced a way as possible. Does this make sense to you?
 * It doesn't mean your interpretation isn't correct. I have my own views of what actually happens in the film that I think none of the published sources understood. Unfortunately, that's the definition of original research, which is a no-no on Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add another perspective, plot summaries on Wikipedia also do not go into great detail. It wouldn't be original research to point out that the terrorizing figurines at the end are played by the same actors as the elderly airport characters, but if this detail is added to the plot summary, there are so many other details that could also be added, and the plot summary could become bloated, or reflect the preferences of article editors as to which details to include and which to omit - contrary to our neutral point of view policy. Geometry guy 22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed edits to plot section
I removed this edit that changed this sentence ''Betty and Rita go to Diane Selwyn's apartment and break in when no one answers the door. In the bedroom they find the body of a woman who has been dead for several days.  to this sentence Betty and Rita go to Diane Selwyn's apartment, only to discover that Diane has switched apartments with a neighbor. Betty and Rita, led to Diane's new apartment, break in after no one answers the door. In the bedroom they find the body of a woman who has been dead for several days.''

I took it out because the switch is not further explained in the article, and only serves to confuse readers who have never seen the film (and probably a lot who already have). I don't see what this adds to the article. The plot is already long for a film article, and it contains only information that is integral to understanding the action of the story and what is discussed by reliable sources later in the article. Anonymous IP, justify why you think it needs to be in the plot section. --Moni3 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Because art is meant to be eaten. It will only serve to confuse those who haven't seen the film, and those who have, to omit this plot point. But I thought this page was called the talk page, not the justification page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.124.242 (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a part of this article meant to be eaten? This is the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a Dali reference, my dear. Ok, great, now I won't have to go searching for the "justification" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.124.242 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. While we are dealing with a surrealist film, it's still an encyclopedia article which has to be concrete about abstract issues. Feel free to make assumptions about my age, intelligence, and competence on my talk page as you have already done. However, if you still have a point to make, please be very clear about what you think the article should contain and why. I'm interested in anyone who wishes to discuss the article, but the talk page is for business. Make your point clearly and without affectation. It's very important to understand what your issue is, and I don't understand it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean-Up Recommended
I think the article could be better organized. It's a bit jumbled, scattered. There's room to condense the information-- perhaps an outline would be beneficial to break down the categories and make the topics more concise and accessible. Also, it would be great to see an increase in the number of contributors, IMO, to avoid ownership issues. 98.148.124.242 (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So which parts are a bit jumbled and scattered? Looks fine to me.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were any room for improvement, it would be comments in the first paragraph, like "along with Lynch's characteristic style". What "style" would that be, if the reader is not familiar with the filmmaker or the film? Would be prudent to address this "characteristic style", whatever that might be, prior to asserting it? If there were room for improvement, the article might be condensed, the categories broken up into additional subcategories, for better clarity. But if it looks fine, let's leave it exactly as it is from here on. 98.148.124.242 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a section on style, although in that particular case the word might be linked. --Harac (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreams and alternate realities/Plot (Suggestion)
In this section I believe it would be improved upon to add the following theory: Characters (a) Rita is really Rita (always) (b) Betty is Betty. (c) Diane is Diane, but in a dream that Rita has, she looks like Betty.

Sequence of Events from beginning to end (not ordered this way in the film): 1. Diane and Rita work together 2. Rita and Diane have a tumultuous affair, due to Rita's infidelity-Fiancée/personal issues/teasing, 3. Diane tries to have Rita killed 4. When she think she's done so, she goes crazy and in the end overdoses and kills herself. 5. FILM STARTS HERE: The murder attempt on Rita did not succeed, instead she lost her memory 6. She meets Betty and they then try to find out who she is. 7. That night they have sex and are madly drawn to each other (because Betty reminds her of Diane unconsciously). 8. They fall asleep and Rita has her dream, (sequence 1-4). 8.1 The film tells you that this part is a dream at this point.

Side: Adam was intended to meet Betty, but due to Rita, they never really meet, which was the intention of an exterior force/(David Lynch?)/cowboy/mob acting on the fate of everyone. (Ursino) —Preceding unsigned – —comment added by 67.64.112.188 (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of interpretations about what the film means. All kinds of interesting approaches. Many of them you can read about in the External links section. But we can't cite them here because many of them are fan-based, not supported by film scholars, and in any case the article states that Lynch left it open to interpretation, so any theory according to him is right. Instead, it is well supported and very clear in the prose that the most notable theories are briefly described.


 * My own interpretation of the film has not been included in the article because I did not read it in multiple reliable sources. Everyone seems to think that Betty and Rita are Diane's dream. Ha! Fools! The film actually is about the difference in quality of life for two people who have love and two who don't. But here on Wikipedia, policy and Featured article writing compel me to address the most common interpretations of the film, cite them to the best reliable sources, and try to explain what Lynch was trying to accomplish. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki rules and "notability"
The following contribution, based on material from critic David Walsh was posted at this site, on March 19, 2011

"Socialist movie critic David Walsh of the World Socialist Website placed his critique of the film within the larger issue of Lynch’s career: “One feels…that the essential driving force of [Mulholland Drive] is the need to enhance and confirm the filmmaker’s own image and status within certain circles. The truth or non-truth of the individual work, its relation to the external world, seems entirely subordinated to that goal. This is one of the surest recipes for artistic insignificance.” [93]

93. Walsh, David (2001-11-03). "I’m Going Home and Mulholland Drive". The World Socialist Website. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/vff3-n03.shtml. Retrieved 2011-03-19.

Walsh’s remarks were removed for the following stated reasons:

"... [David Walsh] does not seem notable and the statement is confusing in the entirety of the [Critical Reception] section..." and the edit violated "UNDUE WT". Moni3/Rostz (talk), 20 March 2011 (UTC) in Revision History section.

What are the precepts at WR that would justify removing Mr. Walsh from the website ? His review is easily available online; on what grounds do editors determine who would seem notable– indeed, what are the criteria for notability? What is confusing about a short comment that evaluates this movie and the director? Cite the passage from WR here which applies to your requirements for notability, as well as the passage that justifies removal for “undue weight”, as it applies to this edit and the context. What is "confusing" about Walsh's statement? Again, cite WR.

True, Walsh is not on the payroll of a major media corporation, and his function is not to promote the interests of the film industry: in that sense, he is not “notable” – nor would be Mark Twain, in his own day. Walsh has, however, written reviews on major and minor releases during the past 15 years – see David Walsh, as well as obituaries on various artists, literary reviews and numerous interviews with film directors, including Ana Poliak, Bahman Ghobadi, Ramin Bahrani, Philippe Faucon, and Alain Tasma to name a few.

Roger Ebert, Stephen Holden, Edward Guthmann, Peter Travers, J. Hoberman, Rex Reed, Peter Rainer, Desson Howe, Todd McCarthy, James Berardinelli and Ray Carney all get a shot at this movie on Wiki; but not David Walsh. Let’s examine this Wiki “policy”. If Wikipedia, and its editors in good standing, limit the contributions to a discussion of a particular film from critics employed by major networks and their subsidiaries, then this limitation on perspective should be understood by those who use Wiki.Califa 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califa22651 (talk • contribs)


 * Personally, I think the article already is heavy on reviews, and some of the ones you listed I don't think should be in the article. I wrote about 90% of this article, and like you did, a couple of the reviews (Desson Howe, James Berardinelli and Ray Carney) were added by folks just coming by to add one. I wouldn't be surprised if the editors who added the more obscure reviewers were the reviewers themselves.
 * So I removed the statement and I'll justify my reasoning by explaining here that immediately following Walsh's assertion that Lynch created a film solely it seems to enhance his ego, thereby reiterating his own artistic insignificance, is a paragraph that states multiple critics named the film as specifically significant for the 2000s.
 * At some point, and it may be now, either the article is going to have to drop the quotes from reviewers and replace them with a general summary or drop their quoted opinions to a footnote. It just can't go on and on with every reviewer's opinion. It's starting to read like a list; it's not well-integrated is choppy. The level of writing for the article has to be very high.
 * I hope I answered your question. Let me know if you have more. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The editors who removed the Walsh contribution did not defend their argument that the critic “does not seem notable”, nor the claim of UNDUE WT, nor why they found the segment “confusing”.

The Walsh quote does, however, serve to balance the section; if edits need to be removed, remove those that are redundant or those that Moni/Rostz “don't think should be in the article.” If clutter was developing, these should have been removed long ago, rather than judging new contributions on this defect. If the section is “not well-integrated”, then that needs to be addressed separately.

From Wiki Service Awards: “Please remember that time spent with and number of edits to Wikipedia are not indicative of the quality of an editor's contributions, or of their diplomatic ability…”veteran" editors have no more authority than "novice" editors.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Service_awards

The “90%” claim establishes no seniority at this website.Califa 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califa22651 (talk • contribs)


 * I appreciate the reminder that I matter not a hill of beans, but I have extensive experience both writing and assessing high quality articles. And Wiki Service Awards is not a policy page. It's...I don't know what it is. I don't pay attention to awards. While everyone who edits Wikipedia starts somewhere, articles should be constructed with the totality of information in mind, balancing due weight from reliable sources. Most articles on Wikipedia are constructed by dozens or hundreds of edits from dozens or hundreds of editors. Very little of them seem to care about the overall coherence of the article and sentences are placed wherever the user feels it is appropriate.


 * The negative or ambiguous reviews in this article are balanced by the more positive. The way the sentence was written, especially in a paragraph all by itself, was simply confusing. As for the way the information is integrated, I'll work to make the section more coherent in a few hours. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia stands by the precept that "time spent with and number of edits to Wikipedia are not indicative of the quality of an editor's contributions". Clearly, you've declined to substantiate your claims, because you can't. So be it.

Perhaps you'll find the following obituary on Liz Taylor, written by Walsh, less "confusing". http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/tayl-m31.shtml

As as to your complaint that your contributions don't amount to a "hill of beans", I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and besides, it's not appropriate to this forum. Califa 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Califa22651 (talk • contribs)


 * No, I'm just forgetful and short of time lately. However, please feel free to go on my talk page and lecture me more about Wikipedia. I'm agog. --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary reverts
Moni- You've done a wonderful job on this article, but I honestly don't see the reason for your reverts of some of my recent changes. Maybe if I explain why I made them, they may make more sense to you.


 * 1 -"A successful Hollywood director" establishes his status early on. Leaving this statement till later in the PS suggests he was not successful when seen previously in the film (before he became broke), which is certainly not the case.
 * 2 - Including the name of the song being sung might not seem important to you, but it appears to be an important plot point...to Lynch anyway. It would also tend to give the reader a fuller understanding of the plot, or it may mean nothing. The point is to include it and leave its interpretation to the reader. Excluding it seems arbitrary, why leave it out? If it's plot bloat of a few extra words that concerns you, I would change the bit about how Rita got her name to "The dark-haired woman assumes the name 'Rita' after seeing a movie poster with the name 'Rita' on it."
 * 3 -" Adam, no longer broke," clarifies to the reader his changed status from the last time he was mentioned in the summary: e.g. losing his credit and going broke(or made to go broke). Moving "a successful director" to the beginning of the PS fits with this change, as he presumably was a successful director to start with since he had a house on Mullholland drive.
 * 4 - Changing "and" to "only to" just sounded better. Subjective, I know. If you think it doesn't, that's fine, but...
 * 5 - "Back at her apartment, in view of the key, she is terrorized by hallucinations" just sounds weird, and frankly I have no idea what that means. Is the key watching her? Is she considering the key in some view she's formulating? If she hides behind the couch is she "out of view of the key"? If you intend to tell the reader that the key has some form of consciousness of its surroundings, that would be speculation on your part. All we see on screen is her staring at the key sitting on the table. I believe "Back at her apartment, staring at the key, she is terrorized by hallucinations" is far less confusing to the reader, and more encyclopedic imo, but if you have a good reason to keep it that way, I'd love to hear it.  Shirt  waist chat 04:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, Shirtwaist. Answers:
 * Adam's success is apparent only in that he is obviously wealthy. He drives a Porsche and has a beautiful house high in the mountains over Los Angeles. The other aspects of his life do not seem successful. He has no control over his film and his wife obviously doesn't like him, and we see his finances unravel. We don't really see if he was successful before and we're not really told this, so this is left up to viewer interpretation as to how successful he was before his very shitty day started. It's safer to say that he's a Hollywood director.
 * The name of the song and its significance is explained in the Soundtrack section. I don't see how it improves the plot by explaining its title without the rest of the details about it. Moreover, if Lynch considered it important, source? I mean, obviously he put it in there, but why must it be explained in the plot summary for a convoluted nonlinear story? Any chaff has to be removed, the plot streamlined to get across to readers what happens.
 * It's clear by this point Adam is successful in many aspects and quite confident.
 * Eh. Style...
 * I changed this back only because when she started seeing the tiny people coming under the door, she was obviously not looking at the key. She was looking at them. I'm not married to "in view of the key", but she can't be staring at the key while she's staring at the tiny people coming under the door. Did I just write that sentence?


 * Thanks for discussing. Look forward to your replies. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The important points first-
 * 2. -The fact that the song deserves explanation in the soundtrack section makes its absence from the PS even more glaring. Simply mentioning in the PS the song's title and the language it's sung in (three words) isn't "explaining" anything, but simply telling the reader what's happening onscreen. If the song was being sung in the background while the two characters are talking to each other, you may have a point, but it appears to be a significant and central element in that scene. Following your logic, would you also consider changing the text 'On stage, a man explains in several languages that everything is an illusion" to "On stage, a man says something" for the purpose of streamlining? Why is what the man says and the languages he uses significant and the name of the song is not? Believe me, I'm all about streamlining and tightening, but leaving a detail like this out is more like strangling.
 * 5. - How about something like "Back at her apartment, with the key on a table in front of her, she is terrorized by hallucinations." Anything is better than "in view of the key".
 * 1. & 3. - Looking at it again, the party at the end at Adam's house is an entirely different reality, but we don't really see anything more relating to his being "successful" there than we did at the beginning. I suggest dropping "who is a successful director" entirely, as it seems to be speculation and an excellent candidate for tightening.
 * Make sense? Shirt  waist chat 07:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The song is not "Crying", but it is. The title of the song is "Llorando"--a Spanish translation of Roy Orbison's "Crying". This is an excellent illustration of how sources determine what is covered in the plot over the director. Lynch states any interpretation of the film is appropriate, so he doesn't emphasize one point over another. So film scholars do this for us. They say that the scene at Club Silencio in its totality represents the hinge at which everything in the film changes; it's an announcement for the audience and the characters that everything they have been seeing is an illusion. It's not just that the song Rebekah del Rio sings that announces it, but the entire scene: the announcer/magician, the different languages used, the discordant sounds and music, and "Llorando" which all leads to the blue box. Explaining that the song is "Crying" isn't quite accurate and begs more explanation--too much for this plot summary. As the Spanish version of "Crying", it's part of the breakdown of communication represented by all the different languages and sounds heard in the scene. This needs to be explained in context by the sources and the plot summary isn't the place to do it.
 * I'm good with "with the key on a table in front of her".
 * I'm also ok with removing "successful" from Adam at the pool party. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes done.
 * "Llorando" - There is a lot in the PS that needs to be explained elsewhere by the sources that do the interpreting, but is included in the PS anyway. I don't see how this has to be an exception. Seeing as this is one of the seemingly important elements in such a pivotal scene, the reader should be told in the PS the title of the song, no other explanation is needed. If we pipe link "Llorando", besides telling implying to the reader that it is sung in Spanish, it will redirect to "Crying", which is all the reader needs to let them know what's going on in the scene. The explanation/interpretation that goes into more depth will be elsewhere, as it should be. Is adding one descriptive word really that detrimental to the PS? Shirt  waist chat 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll put a note on the talkpage of the Film Project for more input too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A Separate Interpretation Page?
Since the interpretation of this film presently takes up a significant portion of the page, and it obviously is a source of great debate/consternation/frustration/interest for the film's audience, perhaps it would be fitting to set up a separate page offering noted interpretations of the film's content/characters/symbolism. This would both clean up the main page and make it be more consice and more linearly layed out, and allow for more in-depth discussion of the plot's themes. 2001 A Space Odyssey has such a page (Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey) and it is layed out I think extremely well, and can perhaps offer a good template to how an interpretation page for Mulholland Drive can look. I can set one up if there are no objections and it can be linked at a later date upon further editing/contributions. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanthompson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Some questions:
 * This article needs cleaning up? What?
 * More concise how? Why would that improve this article?
 * How might one possibly make any part of an article about this film linear?


 * And now some background. This is a Featured Article and has gone through a rigorous peer review to ensure it is well-written and comprehensive. 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is a B-class article and does not appear today to have gone through any effort to have it well-written and comprehensive. If you're thinking about removing chunks of information from this article, it will not improve it. It will leave gaping holes in what readers should be able to get in one article. 2001:A Space Odyssey gets about 3,000 hits a day. Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey gets about 160 a day. I don't understand why creating another article would make anything better. --Moni3 (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are some good points. I wasn't saying that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a better page, simply that the layout of the interpretation page seems to be pretty good and works well with the main page. And I realize the Mulholland Drive (MD) page gets a lot of hits. But, in a separate MD interpretation page, the different interpretations/theories of the film that various notable reviewers have written can be summarized and links set up for the reader to make up their mind, in a easy to navigate place. I also regret using the word 'linear' when writing about MD. I meant linear in the sense of the wiki page jumping around in different sections talking about interpretations of the film. I don't think anyone can do anything to make the movie more linear. And I don't want to remove anything from the main MD page, but if the interpretation page were to be better down the line, and more contributed, perhaps more of the abstract discussion can be put in a single place. The Mulholland Drive page is longer than any of the other Lynch film wiki pages - and for good reason - but it's been my experience with similar pages that a more concise main page with sub pages going into further details of finer points works a little better. But, I could be wrong there. But, in any case, do you think an interpretation page is worthwhile/called for? Again, I never intended to even touch the main MD wiki page. Ryanthompson (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)