Jump to content

Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ann Miller's character

The following edits were made to this article by three separate editors.

Problems with these edits include:

  • Making Ann Miller's character major in the first paragraph of the Plot section by introducing her.
  • Making her more prominent by bringing her out of the bottom of the last paragraph in the Characters section, placing her above characters who sources have stated are more important.

What sources does Jeremy28 ask via edit summary I'm using? All of the ones cited in this article. None of them give Ann Miller's character this kind of prominence. She is adequately described in this version. By far the majority of source information centers on Betty and Rita, Diane and Camilla, Adam Kesher, and the various entities that threaten the other characters for Lynchian reasons.

Also, the editors making these edits (Hans100 (talk · contribs), 76.168.227.79 (talk · contribs), and Jeremy28 (talk · contribs) have very similar edit histories. Be advised per the policy against abusing multiple accounts that you may be blocked for doing this. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Wrenched"

In the section "Style", the second picture caption begins "An emotionally wrenched Diane". I suppose that the word "wrenched" is being used here in relation to the third noun definition of "wrench". However I did not understand the meaning of it. After further investigation, I saw that it is not used appropriately here. "Wrenched" is not an adjective, and its use in this way is incorrect and confusing.

I changed the word to "wretched", because this seemed a likely typo. "Wretched" is an adjective and would be appropriate in this context. However Rostz reverted this.

I am inviting Rostz to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, its use is correct and such formulations are quite common in English; see compound modifier. Rostz (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of such rhetoric, this obscure use of the word led me to believe that it was a typo. I had to check the word in a dictionary and then extrapolate an undefined meaning to place it into this context. This implies that its use here is a poor choice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Plot cleanup discussion

At present the plot is above 700 words and as per policy I reduced it to below 700. I took out the unneccessary details so please take a look here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mulholland_Drive_%28film%29&diff=482498569&oldid=482370983. It was reverted twice so please can we discuss this thanks, I believe this edit is an improvement. --JTBX (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT says "The summary should not exceed the range [400 and 700 words] unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." MH clearly fits this criterion, so the GA version's 792 word plot description conforms to policy, and I disagree that your deletions are an improvement. Rostz (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rostz. The Plot section for this article is more an attempt to describe what happens on screen, so that sourced statements in the following sections can make try to explain the action and its significance. This is not a conventional film. It has to be readable and understandable by people who have never seen it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, mine is another vote to retain the longer plot. 92 extra words is not a lot to ask, especially when it's trying to explain a David Lynch film. GRAPPLE X 13:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Rostz. WP:FILMPLOT is not a "policy", it's a guideline. Strict compliance is not expected when there are good reasons to deviate—and we haven't deviated by that much. This is a very complex film. --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"This is a very complex film." It's all a dream. Apart from the last bit. There you go! ;-) Seriously, agree with the above comments/rationales. This current plot got through the FA process, so there can't be too much wrong with it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Um, I cut out details which are unimportant, case in point the sentence "the man has a nightmare about a horrid figure behind the building, when he goes to investigate the man with the nightmare collapses in fright", the second "with the nightmare" is completely unnecessary. These are the bulk of my changes and I do not understand if you actually read through, how I change any details in any way, the plot is still there with unnecessary repetition and so on taken out. Read through the plot, read through my edit, "unconventional plot" isn't really an excuse if I can make an edit that abides more with the guidelines. It’s a slap in the face to me and the fact that I edit plots all the time and have had my edits reversed, say in films like Inception because too much detail was added. --JTBX (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As with any article, making major changes to it that are not obvious such as fixing misspelled words, coding problems, references, or other style issues, the best way to approach improvements is to read the talk page to find out if editors are actively maintaining it, then ask on the talk page about making improvements, particularly if you are not familiar with the article's history. While Wikipedia allows anyone to be WP:BOLD--a guideline I've taken advantage of many times--it also depends in many cases on consensus. This article has been through a very rigorous peer review when it was nominated for a Featured Article in 2008. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but that the quality is very high and editors may have a stake in ensuring that the quality remains high. It also means that there are specific reasons why things read the way they do in the article. Furthermore, for a film as surreal as this one, the sources determine more of what is important for readers to know, as opposed to you or me making that decision. Because sources focus on some points more than others, or consider some action to be significant, that is why it is included in the plot description. Making a unilateral decision to remove detail from the plot that is later covered by sourced statements where scholars and critics interpret the film for readers makes the article less coherent.

As for your changes, they warrant discussion.

  • You removed the statement at the beginning of the plot explaining that there is a time disruption apparent in the narrative(s). This is essential to understand when reading the plot for this film. I do not believe it should be removed.
  • "brunette woman" is redundant and included twice in your edit. "Brunette" is the female form of the word. Also, Laura Harring's hair is black. "Dark-haired woman" is more accurate.
  • "brunette woman confused, not knowing her own name, so the woman"-- I would have used a pronoun the second reference to "the woman".
  • "as the lead in his film"-- "in his film" was removed and I agree that it is unnecessary.
  • This sentence "He later learns that his bank has closed his line of credit and he is broke." was altered to this fragment: "later learning he is broke". What you've removed is the surreal improbability of the bank, among many factors, taking control of Adam's life.
  • Adam Kesher's story, The Cowboy, and the bungling hit man are at this point unrelated to the central story of Rita and Betty, which is why they were included in their own paragraph. You joined paragraphs so that you related Rita and Betty to these as-yet unrelated stories. It makes the very confusing plot more confusing.
  • You removed the quotes from "This is the girl", making it seem as if this is the girl (actually you phrased it as "it is the girl", and I don't know what that means) is appropriate language for this article when it's not--it was included because it's a direct quote from a character open to viewer interpretation.
  • "They find the body of a woman who has been dead for some time in her bed." What's the point of this sentence? That the woman is dead or that she has been dead for some time in her bed? This writing is unclear. Also, the nature of writing Featured Articles is the nearly obsessive-compulsive attention to detail. Unintentional rhyming of words (dead, bed) in the same sentence interrupts the sober description of the scene. It was worded much more gracefully--and meaningfully--in the previous version.
  • At this point, the clarity of the previous version has been supplanted for brevity and the plot description has become far too confusing for general readers. There are too many issues to list.

I look forward to any discussions to improve this article as long as standards for excellence in writing and Wikipedia guidelines are at the forefront of the conversation. I look forward to responses from any interested editors. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Title

The film's official title appears to be "Mulholland Dr." but it's listed here as "Mulholland Drive". I'm curious how that decision was made, or if it was ever considered. Son of Somebody (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was discussed here, and the person who improved this article to Featured status endorsed this approach here. I Googled "mulholland drive" lynch versus mulholland dr" lynch and found that "Mulholland Drive" had many more results. For what it's worth, article titles do not need to be the official titles; see WP:COMMONNAME. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot (cont)

I've made additions, and a few small deletions, to the Plot section. I agree with those who said in the previous discussion that the section should be as long as necessary to convey the essentials of the plot, and that the narrative should make the film intelligible to someone who hasn't seen it. Whether the latter is possible, I doubt: the thread of the film is hard to follow even for those who have viewed it many times. But we should do our best. The problem with restricting the length is this: Lynch has packed the film with significance―technical effects, dialogue, songs, seemingly incidental props, such as blankets, ashtrays or coffee cups, and much else, all serve to drive the plot on and create connections between parts of the film that would otherwise be incomprehensible or meaningless. Lynch has said the film is coherent and, as his clues on the DVD release indicate, we have to look in unconventional places to find that coherence. The significance of these additions should be clear, but I have been very conscious of the need for brevity, so sometimes it may not be. I'm sure I've missed a lot, so the section could legitimately get longer yet. If editors feel it's getting out of hand, we could create a daughter article for a full treatment. Thanks Spicemix (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Two minutes after my change was made an editor has reverted it. This is not long enough to evaluate the edit, nor to read my last comment, and the reason given, length (in fact my edit is not really very much longer than before), goes against my understanding of the consensus in the discussion above. Any views? Thanks Spicemix (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion you refer to was about a 792-word plot summary, not the 2,000-word summary you wrote. Your version was excessive. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact I make it around 1670. Before my two edits I think it was around 900. I would say the guideline of 700 is a generous allowance for the great majority of films, but that it's inadequate in this case. The summary before had very little redundancy, but omitted a large amount of significant material, not just detail, but entire scenes. So, for example, the first two scenes were passed over. It's not possible in a narrative of this type to have that level of treatment, because keys to making sense of the film are placed everywhere, and each has its unique part to play and is placed there by Lynch with deliberation and extreme economy. It is just that texturing and complexity that make the film what it is, a great cult classic. If we don't respect and reflect that in our plot summary, then we shall have a distortion and, I think, we shall disappoint readers who come to the page hoping for something that reflects the director's ambition. Spicemix (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The plot summary is not supposed to describe every scene. It is to give a useful outline of the major events so that an uninformed reader will understand the plot. You seem to think that Lynch's work is so special and complex that we should describe every nuance, and to do otherwise is to insult him. But, frankly, that is absurd. This is an encyclopedia, not a Lynch fansite. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to concur. WikiProject Film's guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT say 400-700 words, and this is based on WP:PLOT (part of Wikipedia's policy) that says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." We permit some flexibility with films of a more complex nature, but considering that this article went through the WP:FAC process with the previous summary, I don't think it warrants a substantial expansion. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur with Erik, although I acknowledge and understand Spicemix's point. It's my understanding that our plot summaries should be a concise overview so the reader knows what the film is about. Understanding the film is a whole different level best left to film books and journals. --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for these responses. I agree with The Old Jacobite that "The plot summary … is to give a useful outline of the major events so that an uninformed reader will understand the plot." The question then is whether a reader can understand the plot as the text stands. Does it make any sense at all? Are questions such as the following trivial and to be passed over? Is Betty telephoning herself? Is Diane in the same limo at the end that Rita crashed in at the beginning? Is Adam the director of Sylvia North or is it 'Bob Brooker'? Who is the dreamer at the beginning? With whom does the series of phone calls terminate? Who is the man behind Winkies, just a bum? Why are there two different blue keys? Was the amnesiac Rita a prostitute? How does the mob know where Betty and Rita are living? Why did Diane switch apartments? Why are the police looking for her? Who is hammering on her door when she kills herself? These are all patently 'plot' questions, not just detail or color or fansite trivia. Compare the plot points that the director advises us to attend to:

  1. Pay particular attention in the beginning of the film: At least two clues are revealed before the credits.
  2. Notice appearances of the red lampshade.
  3. Can you hear the title of the film that Adam Kesher is auditioning actresses for? Is it mentioned again?
  4. An accident is a terrible event —notice the location of the accident.
  5. Who gives a key, and why?
  6. Notice the robe, the ashtray, the coffee cup.
  7. What is felt, realized and gathered at the Club Silencio?
  8. Did talent alone help Camilla?
  9. Note the occurrences surrounding the man behind Winkie's.
  10. Where is Aunt Ruth?

To take the first point alone, events before the credits were not mentioned till I added them.

The only way to condense these key points is to make assumptions or generalisations about them, e.g. There seem to be a number of alternative realities which sometimes interact, or This part of the film is a dream, or Diane is hallucinating when she kills herself. The last is currently in the section text. These all seem to me to be critical appraisals, or OR, to be avoided. I think the only alternative is to tell it like it is, concretely. Equally, and this point is being overlooked, if we make an editorial judgment to miss out plot events in the film, then that is original research by omission.

I'm not claiming that my additions are 100% concise, though I've aimed for that, or that the section is now complete and intelligible (it certainly isn't), but I would say that a newcomer has no chance of following the plot from the section as it stands, and that a viewer of the film will not recognise it as a description of the film that she has seen. Thanks again. Spicemix (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't look behind the curtain. (Or; why this article needs NPOV balancing.)

There are many in the world of film production who believe Lynch to be a hack who levers his contacts to get large sums of money to make absurd nonsense on par with the quality one would expect from film students. I happen to be of the same opinion, and cannot see any masterful plot weaving or any of the other implied positive elements that people offer as why they have invested so much time into what even the creator refuses to comment on lest people peek behind the curtain and see that it's puff. I know my opinion is not rare, especially for this film in particular. But reading the article it appears as though everyone is of the same unanimous opinion that Lynch is actually a master, and this is a masterpiece. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 06:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So pray tell my liege, what exactly needs fixing? Maybe you have something constructive to add? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I recall providing a list of reliable sources to the editor who wrote this article. Looking in the archives, I am not discerning any such requested views from the titles. Policy says that articles need to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". A shift in proportionality would need to be evidenced by reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
So you're telling me there isn't a single criticism of this movie? Wow. That has to be a first in Wikipedia history. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 00:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you looking for negative criticism from scholars or film critics? I was assuming scholars, but if you are looking for film critics, the third paragraph of "Critical reception" references detractors. Also, please see WP:SIG#EL; one cannot have an external link in their signature. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox in Soundtrack section

Considering the film's soundtrack doesn't have its own separate article, I'd like to request an infobox be added to the Soundtrack section, and possibly {{Album ratings}} as well. FamblyCat94 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

OR comment in header

I have twice tried to remove the statement "It is now widely regarded as one of Lynch's finest works, and as one of the greatest films of the 21st century" in the opening and have been reverted both times by user SubSeven, who suggests that the statement is a fact supported by the "Reception" section. Contrary to the reverting user's opinion, I have read the "Reception" section, and while there is some support for this first part of the assertion, there is none for the second. The "Reception" area includes nothing to back up the assertion that Mulholland Dr. is "widely regarded" as "one of the greatest films of the 21st century." On the contrary, the introduction of Rotten Tomatoes into the Reception section ("Who cares about RT?" I was asked) makes it clear that it is not "widely regarded" as "one of the greatest films of the 21st century."

Rather than continue a revert war with the condescending SubSeven, I am opening this up for discussion. As written, I find the "widely regarded" statement a bit overmuch and smacking of NPOV, which this article has had problems with in the past. IMO, it should be removed or rewritten so that, as an assertion, it's at least supported by the citations in the "Reception" section.PacificBoy 21:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I made a condescending comment because, by bringing up Rotten Tomatoes, it seemed you had only taken a cursory look at the reception area before reverting your edit. Now I'm not sure whether that is the case, or if this a misunderstanding of policy and you are trying to override cited claims by your interpretation of the Rotten Tomatoes number, so I'll try and cover both:
A statement such as 'one of the greatest films of the 21st century' must be backed up by reliable sources that support that claim directly. It doesn't matter if the film's Rotten Tomatoes score is 100%, or 50%, or 0%, because that number says nothing in regards to the original statement. For an editor to take that number and use it to make their own judgement as to where the film stands in the hierarchy of 21st century films would be original research.
There are several reliable sources in the reception area given to support the statement in dispute. Sight & Sound. BBC Culture. Film Comment. MANY cited critics and collectives of critics calling it among the best of the decade. --SubSeven (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mulholland Drive (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Two listings on IMDB

This article is here, with the 1999 "TV movie" (!) here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

New Source

Here is the source i found that mentioned awards related to Mulholland Drive. I think you may need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyenhai314 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mulholland_Drive_(film)/Archive_3&oldid=1215664728"