Simplistic Theory

Exclusively reserved for discussion regarding David Lynch's 'Mulholland Dr.'
User avatar
UniqueAmI
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Nov 2015
Status: Offline

Simplistic Theory

Postby UniqueAmI » 04 Nov 2015

I'm sure someone has probably put a theory like this forward. But, I can't find it. Here it is -

Lynch does things that just can't be explained. But, it makes people wonder, and it's kind of a marketing tool for him. How many films have sites dedicated to it where they try to explain what an audience has seen? Not many, except this movie.

The one thing I've always thought is all the female characters look alike in their hair style/general appearance. If you had bad eyes Watts could have played the waitress, prostitute, Carmilla and once Rita put on the wig, Rita. All the women looked alike. Which makes them interchangeable.

The first half is not a dream. When Watts and Harring change roles it's just Lynch's way of showing "leading ladies" are interchangeable. They literally played four different real characters.

My problem with the dream theory is no one would ever have a dream like this. Not even in Lynch's surreal world.

User avatar
Siku
 
Posts: 430
Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Status: Offline

Re: Simplistic Theory

Postby Siku » 06 Nov 2015

Hi UniqueAmI

Always nice to get back to basics. I think you're kind of right about Lynch being deliberately inexplicable. But I don't think he's disingenuous, he's not trying to fool you. I think that, while making something headscratchingly incomprehensible he also puts in loads and loads of really interesting connections and cool stuff. He's a very clever guy and it takes years to put together a film, so there's plenty of time for him to cram in all sorts of interesting content. Also, he's arguable been making the same film over and over, and keeps returning to the same themes and ways of telling those themes, and each time it gets richer (though more or less successful!).

I really recommend you suspend your scepticism, have some faith and spend some time turning it over in your mind. You obviously like the film and find it interesting or you wouldn't be here.

UniqueAmI wrote:The one thing I've always thought is all the female characters look alike in their hair style/general appearance. If you had bad eyes Watts could have played the waitress, prostitute, Carmilla and once Rita put on the wig, Rita. All the women looked alike. Which makes them interchangeable.

....Lynch's way of showing "leading ladies" are interchangeable.


That's a neat little observation. The film is largely about 'recasting your lead actress' and that's exactly what Lynch does (sort of)! The fact that 'leading ladies are interchangeable' i.e. meat for the Hollywood dream machine, and the devastating effect that has on actresses lives, is, some would say, the thesis of the whole film. So I think you've summed it up there in a nutshell.

Absolutely Betty, the waitress, blonde Camilla (singing at the audition), the prostitute and of course Diane all look VERY similar. Why?

BTW a lot of people at the time praised Naomi Watt's performance of Betty/Diane. One observation was that she played Betty and Diane so different, you weren't sure at first if it WAS the same actress. Sometimes it's the same actress but you think it's not, sometimes its not but you think it is! I'm not so sure Rita and Betty look similar, but then in the middle of the film the plot explores them becoming more similar, with Rita donning the wig and attempting to change up her identity.

Why do you think 'no one would have a dream like this'? These sorts of sliding and overlapping identities are very dreamlike. Haven't you ever had a dream where it was person X but actually they were person Y they just LOOK like person X. Know what I mean?

If you wanted to represent a dream in film, how would you do it better?


Return to Mulholland Dr.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron