tremonius (tremonius) wrote in mulholland__dr,
tremonius
tremonius
mulholland__dr

That's the Girl!

I see two additions, cobbled on like onto a house when a family grows. 

The psychiatric sequence, where they explore from the diner the patient's nightmare about the troll behind the dumpster.

The funny murders.

These were like self-contained units, bad dreams superimposed.  They could have been lifted out and torn no vital tissue.

You think?

The religious scene is at the center.  The old decrepit silent God, who merely is.  Does not move.  Does not talk. Like all his ilk.

"Okay," agrees the priest with no earthly prompting, "We'll stop the production."

The producer on the left of the two who demanded "That's the girl."  He demanded a means of spitting out his espresso.  He did not indicate he did not like the espresso, although the provider assumed that must be the case.  It would have been a traditional interpretation.  Men figure it that way, if you spit out their offering.  But then, you'd think, after the director is brought online with the scheme, the girl picked would be That's the girl, but she wasn't.  We see her picture and then never again, I think.

I think.

 

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 2 comments
Hi- I'm new 2 live journal and new 2 this community, so I'll try to be xtra xtra nice in this post - and even tentative -- but it won't be easy. Please bear with me, I want to make U all my friends!

U mentioned 2 sequences:

1. The psychiatric sequence, where they explore from the diner the patient's nightmare about the troll behind the dumpster.

I don't think this one was superfluous. The diner sequence was extremely important. The patient was in reality a customer standing by the door in the 2nd half of the film when Betty/Diane hires the hit man. However, in the first part of the movie, she has imagined him into a different role, that of a psychiatric patient, replacing her in the same seat. He dreams of standing by the door, but that is
Betty/Diane remembering that that's where he actually stood. He greatly fears the scary man (with the blue box) and the reason is this. He is a stand-in for Betty/Diane, who should be fearful of the blue box (final judgement), but isn't because she he has not yet confronted it. In real life, the 2nd part of the film, she makes a very critical and irrevocable and lethal decision: to have her lover murdered. And that's why in her dream in the first 1/2, she blocks this memory by inserting a random customer in her place. Even the killer-for-hire (the funny killer) seems unsure and hesitant about performing the hit, and asks for a confirmation. And we know how ruthless he is. In the 2nd part (reality), it's Betty/Diane sitting in the same spot as the psychiatric patient (it's she that needs psychiatric help). The scary man with the blue box representing Final Judgement or Death, is behind the diner because that is where Betty/Diane has sealed her doom morally and psychologically with her
decision to kill the woman she loves.

2. The funny murders. They seemed extraneous to me at first also. They exist for contrast. What's being contrasted is the remorseless viciousness of a hired killer (that is almost comical in its ferocity) versus the deliberate
renuncation of love, the deliberate murderous plan of ultimate revenge by a troubled, but average person who goes over the boundaries of sorrow and heartbreak to cruel revenge.

I found certain aspects of the "hired killer in the diner scene: very similar to Pulp Fiction. The idea that the worst killer might experiance a minor attack of conscience is in both films. I consider Mulholland Drive the superior film, although there are certain interesting similarities.

Thanks for putting up with me!!!


I think I'm seeing a misinterpretation. Trying to shoehorn a dream sequence into traditional narrative is only herding kittens.

Sitting in the laundramat, watching the glass front of the dryer. All sorts of clothing items appear and disappear. I see a blouse make a motion like rumba. In twenty minutes I see a sweatshirt in precisely the same pose and motion.

Does the blouse cause the sweatshirt. Is the consciousness of the one related in any way to the other? Of course not. They are all just following the torque of their spinning world.

There are only so many poses. Actress. Aspiring actress. Failed actress. Dead actress. Jealous and fearful and resentful and deadly. Of course various of the characters assume a variety of poses. The hideously jolly couple of escorts, they're dancers early on at the send-off party.

Can you say the dead lady in the bungalow is the blonde? Yes, once. And once the blonde and the brunette break into the bungalow to find her there. Is the dead one aware, remembering the one who finds her? After all, they are the same actress in different takes.

And this movie is not Pulp Fiction, just as King Lear is not Old King Cole. You cannot superimpose a standard issue suit off the rack onto this one.

And about making friends. I have found only two types who have retched back in anger online: (1) those who have an insupportable position to defend, and (2) those who are incompetent at defending it.

Yep, those two parts interchange with a variety of characters over the life of the dream, sho' 'nuff.