Mulholland Drive : Can someone explain the whole movie to me?

I got lost so many times. I know i wasnt watching properly but i don't have time to watch it again.

Thanks!!!!

It's bits and pieces of a cancelled tv show.

This is hardly the case. I realize that it was originally intended as a pilot to a TV series, but it was re-arranged and some shots were added before it was edited and released. It's a complete and brilliant film that crosses more than a few genres and is considered one of the best suspense/horror films made in the past 2 decades.

Am I here to amuse you?

I've watched this film about 3 times and everytime i still can't figure out what is going on! its literally as if its being made up as it goes along

The easiest way is to read this synopsis on wiki. But honestly, consider it a warning not to watch Lynch's other films. They're all confusing. He intends it that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulholland_Drive_(film)

It's like Jim Henson's "Labyrinth", except instead of the labyrinth being made of physical trials in the sequence of a maze, it's made out of non-linear loops of traumatic memories, and instead of the Goblin King being romanticized to look like David Bowie, it looks like an actual goblin.

I got lost so many times. I know i wasnt watching properly but i don't have time to watch it again.

If you weren't 'watching properly' and don't want to watch it again, then don'tthat's the whole point of the movie ( to watch itcarefully!)

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are" Nin

The first two hours are her dream of how she wishes everything was. She wishes she was a successful actress and that the hit she put out on her ex-girlfriend failed and she could save her and take care of her. Then she wakes up and the last half-hour shows everything in her life that influenced the dream. She's a failed actress and her girlfriend dumped her and got movie roles by sleeping with the director, so she put a hit out on her. The blue key on the table shows that the hit was complete and she feels so guilty she kills herself.

Damn. That's basically the best synopsis/summary I've seen thus far. Most people end up making it far more complicated than it needs to be.

Sugar and Cornflakes,
Alexis A.

It is more of a parallel universe, guilt and she was clearly mental. The hollywood dream is dead. People come there for the glitz and glamour but end up selling themselves for sex, waitressing and stuff. She was jealous of her friend too but also loved her.

"question is why you won't come with me." "I don't have a passport." "What are you, American?"

Oh, now I get it. I was following it until about the last 30 minutes. Then I was like, wow this just got weird. I figured she was kind of a nut.

The story is too vague for most people to figure out and that is not an advantage.

I gave up on it once. Then I started it again. One good thing is that I have finally realized that Naomi Watts is a great actress.

Once I read up on it and knew it was a failed tv pilot, then I lost interest in trying to figure it out.
Lynch makes these movies that are so obscure and strange and then says I like it when no one can figure my movie.

But he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies. That is why he can't explain it, it doesn't mean anything to him either/

You see he intended it to be a tv show that he would let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week.

But when he couldn't convince the producers to go along with his crazy idea, he took what he had filmed and stuck more scenes in it and said this is a movie.

The truth is, the viewer is the one who gives this movie any kind of realism or sense at all!

It for sure is not the writer nor the director.

The plot:
The simplest way to make sense is to read up on some other people's ideas and then form your own. you won't be wrong as there is NO wrong or right.

Once you know that the beginning is a dream, and Betty is a character in Diane's dream, you can kind of follow what is happening.

Everything in the beginning is Diane's dream of a perfect life. She really did win that dance contest and her grandparents watched her win it. She got a chance to go to Hollywood because her aunt is in the movie biz and lets her have the apt. (It is also implied that Diane actually inherited 50,000 from her aunt and that the aunt died leaving the apt to Betty.)

Betty/Diane's dream of success gets derailed by Camilla getting the part Diane wanted. Camilla slept with the director but Betty had the talent. From then on, it is a series of disappointments for Diane(Betty). (Diane was not the supreme actress tho, that she dreams Betty is)

\ you know the audition is a dream because of the way it is handled. They are in a tiny room and too many people are there watching. They are sooooo solicitous of her. That is not reality in Hollywood. She should have been taped for future watching at the very least.
And there would not have 5 extra people there. Those extra people could have watched a tape of her later.


Supposedly, the last 1/3 or so is reality & can also help u make sense of it if you ever have the time to spare to watch again.
Basically, the death of Diane is shown way too early. Her death comes at the end of course.

But you could also say that the entire dream takes place in the few minutes before her consciousness is gone after she shoots herself.
Kind of like the other movie Watts was in called Stay.

---

"Once I read up on it and knew it was a failed tv pilot, then I lost interest in trying to figure it out."

---

Unfortunately many people see this as a negative. Lynch has stated that the film evolving out of a TV show into a feature film was a wonderful serendipitous thing and what it always wanted to be. This relates to the most likely deep meaning of the film as having developed from a small screen commercial pilot for a broken up TV series into a complete singular beautiful meaningful work on the big screen (and finding happiness)!

---

But he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies. That is why he can't explain it, it doesn't mean anything to him either/

---

Lynch has stated that his explaining the film would putrefy the experience. Likely not only for the viewer but for Lynch and his own artistic vision. I tend to agree.

I have learned to avoid shows (like Lost) that don't have a definition or focus, in other words that can go wherever the writers decide to go. Sometimes shows go in new directions just because the writers are unable to write something that conforms to the original definition or theme or whatever.

In other words, "let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week" is definitely not what I am interested in.

---

I have learned to avoid shows (like Lost) that don't have a definition or focus

---

Lost and Mulholland Dr. are highly focused. You just have to know what to look for. Roger Ebert hated Mulholland Dr. the first time he saw it. But when someone directed him toward the proper way to see it, he reconsidered his review and hailed it as a masterpiece.

You get what you need to understand the ending of Lost from the first few episodes. And you get what you need to understand Mulholland Dr. from the first 20 minutes.

I apologize for not knowing how to say what I mean to say, but Lost absolutely is the type of show I am trying to say it is. Stop trying to make what I am saying wrong and start trying to understand what I am trying to say.

---

Roger Ebert hated Mulholland Dr. the first time he saw it. But when someone directed him toward the proper way to see it, he reconsidered his review and hailed it as a masterpiece.

---

Do you have a source for this? Although not wholly appreciative of some of Lynch's earlier works (I'm thinking specifically of his notorious one-star appraisal of Blue Velvet) I'm fairly certain Ebert was raving about Mulholland Dr. from the beginning.

---

Do you have a source for this? Although not wholly appreciative of some of Lynch's earlier works (I'm thinking specifically of his notorious one-star appraisal of Blue Velvet) I'm fairly certain Ebert was raving about Mulholland Dr. from the beginning.

---

It was something I remembered from a while back. But after a few minutes of googling, I can't find the reference. So perhaps I've remembered wrong. If I come across the reference, I'll post back here.

I think Bsharp DOES remember wrong here, considering that Ebert's first (4-star) review dates from October the 12th 2001, the very week MD was first released in the USA. Of course, the funny thing is, he sees no logic to it whatsoever.

Actually, the ONLY Lynch movie before MD he appreciated at all, was The Straight Story; no other thing Lynch ever did scored higher than 2/4 with him (it is unknown if he ever saw Eraserhead).



"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

I don't watch serials either (I don't watch any TV shows) and have only seen one episode of Twin Peaks many years ago. However MD is a complete work that can be understood as a logical and meaningful artistic portrayal using symbolism and metaphor that has more to do with Lynch's interest and advocacy of Transcendental Meditation (See "The David Lynch Foundation")than a physical world "reality", that most viewers seem satisfied to accept. Lynch has always been more interested in depicting the world that exists inside the mind rather than the "illusion" of the physical world. It can take a lot of effort and I completely understand that many viewers will not want to invest the time or may never discover a path to viewing inner layers the film can depict. The explanation you provided in a previous post is a popular one but I have always found unresolved. That view remains within the physical material world and does not delve into the deeper regions that can be discovered. It remains a fun experience for me that has provided a path to better understand my own mind.

Some movies and songs are intentionally vague. Some people enjoy developing their own opinion of the meaning and discussing them. The problem is that most people that enjoy discussing them tend to insist their interpretation is correct, I am not interested in participating in that. To the extent that this movie is vague, I do not enjoy it.

It might be different if people could agree to disagree and that there are multiple possible interpretations but even then I am unlikely to participate in the discussions.

I think I understand now, Sam. Your second post was clearer than your first.

You do not like works of art which are deliberately left open for discussion as to its meaning.

If this is the case, then Mulholland Dr. and all other David Lynch movies are definitely not for you. I don't even understand why you are here discussing what you hate discussing.

Ye, art is highly subjective. Some people enjoy paintings very much that others consider to be gross.

I replied here because someone asked "Can someone explain the whole movie to me?". Then artistathome replied to my comment saying "Lynch makes these movies that are so obscure and strange" and likes it like that and saying "he himself can't figure out the plot of his OWN movies" and "he intended it to be a tv show that he would let it play out week by week and use his imagination to do new shows each week". My reply to that was that I don't like shows like that. Then you replied by saying the movie is focused. If you think it is focused then reply to artistathome.

---

If you think it is focused then reply to artistathome

---

Okay.

Hey aritathome! This movie has focus if you focus on the right things.

Notice the scene before the credits where someone seems to be falling asleep on a bed with burgundy sheets and a green blanket. Do we see this bed again? Perhaps when someone is waking up?

Notice the diner scene. Dan tells Herb about a recurring dream in which he becomes scared, Herb stands by the counter of Winkies and there is a strange man behind the restaurant. What happens next?

Dan becomes scared. Herb is standing by the counter. They go behind Winkies and see a strange man. What conclusion can we draw from this? (hint: the dream is recurring).;

Add a few Wizard Of Oz references and the movie shifts from blurry to in focus. In Wizard of Oz we know it is Dorothy dreaming but who is dreaming this movie? Should be mostly in focus now

Hmm .I thought question teaching or whatever it's called violated the board's neutrality protocol. at least, that is how it was circa 2008 when a poster called Bernie_Elms used to do it, and was routinely attacked by some who didn't agree with his teachings.

I don't know what "question teaching" or "board's neutrality protocol" mean.

The main thing IMDB cares about is not violating the law and not costing them (IMDB) money. They don't want profanity and such as that. Instead of speculating, you should read their policies.

People attack others every day in these discussions. I assume IMDB does not want to pay to moderate personal attacks. It is however very difficult to have a worthwhile discussion, it is much more likely that we will be attacked than have a worthwhile discussion. If they were to moderate personal attacks then they would lose some people and gain others.

Teaching others by asking them questions to make them come up with the answers on their own, rather than lecturing.

Many of the PC police have repeatedly claimed the movie is open to personal interpretation per Lynch's intention. Baiting someone else towards your personal interpretation violates this understanding.

This board used to be a battlefield and many have fallen.

People have been using terms in ways different from their original definition. I think what you are trying to say is very different from what I would guess what you mean. I won't try to figure it out.

For example if PC means Politically Correct then there is no politics here. The term was a bad term from the beginning.

No, you are replying to me, not aritathome. He or she is not likely to see your reply. If you reply to him or her then they will get a notification and I would not.

I was just looking back at some of the history of recent posts on this thread and just felt like writing something.

---

"The story is too vague for most people to figure out"

---

Pehaps "vague" is the wrong term but think I understand what you mean. I might prefer "mysterious", "puzzling" or "perplexing". Vague suggests "ill-defined".

---

"and that is not an advantage."

---

The viewer's involvement in the mystery is an integral part of Lynch's artistic vision (IMO). No "advantage" can be provided.

You were replying to a post by dropkick. I am afraid I find the dropkick POV too complex for my tastes and not certain what the point (meaning/moral) would be. I expect people generally find most alternative perspectives (including mine) difficult to fully grasp.

The term "ill-defined" is slightly derogatory and implies unintentional; in other words, a mistake. Vague can be either intentional or unintentional.

There are two types of mysteries.

Some mysteries, as in crime mysteries, have a solution at the end.

Other mysteries are not important to the story.

Many (I think most) people are irritated when something is reasonably relevant to the story yet never explained. The words "puzzling" and "perplexing" are also like that type of mystery.

I apologize if you found my comment derogatory. It was unintended.

Vague:1.of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear:
"many patients suffer vague symptoms"

synonyms: indistinct indefinite indeterminate unclear ill-defined
[more]

thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way:
"he had been very vague about his activities"

My point is that I eventually found MD certain, definite, clear and focused etc. it is remarkably rich and detailed. That others are often unable is near the heart of what Lynch has portrayed. Perhaps it was vague to me at one time but no longer.

---

"Many (I think most) people are irritated"

---

This is related to the negativity we experience as a darker side of human nature. You are experiencing what Lynch believes and portrays in MD. Lynch believes there are paths that both "lead to" and "lead to eliminating" much of that negativity. As in the film, most people never are able to "see" this. It is not necessary to believe it but to have some basic understanding what Lynch believes to be important in his own personal life. This might help viewers to become aware of the deeper meaning that can be discovered within the film.

You can try to tell people they should like it but those of us that don't like it will just ignore you.

a call-out. Nice

What is the point of examining in excruciating detail the inner- mental workings of an unseen protagonist or a character that we see for 20 minutes with no redeeming qualities?

With the latter view, only the final 20 mins of the movie would serve any real purpose.

I am not certain what you mean.

You're a WiT person.

What does WiT mean?

Is that "Woman in Trouble"? I was trying to recall because I think I had seen the abbreviation previously. I do not consider my self WiT if that is what it means. I might consider my POV as "tUF" but have never thought to give it a name!

I've seen your refer to a 'protagonist' whose mental workings are driving the narratives. Where is this person, floating in the ether or is she on screen (M.George?)

Anyway, yeah unified field. Or unified lynch possibly. He could be the one.

I accept that the POV I offer does not seem to resonate with others. I find it so fulfilling I presume it is due to my own inability to discuss it satisfactorily (delusion?). Lets see where this goes.

I do not interpret as a literal dream/reality but envision all of the characters as "character-istics" interacting within a symbolic subconscious mental landscape. I have written about Sylvia North (vs Sylvia "West" in the film Sylvia)being an unseen representative of the mental depiction but I really see it more as reflecting the universal viewers mind. North (Canada) can be interpreted as upas in relation to "the head" being up. Southern California would be "downwards" in deeper regions of the mind. Aunt Ruth being in Canada would be representing a "conscious" waking state of mind largely unaware of the subconscious state that we experience in the film.

You mention Melissa George. I will offer an interpretation. She is identified as "Camilla Rhodes" as is Laura Herring later. This is simply symbolically a wrong "path" (Road/Rhodes/path) for Adam and for Betty/Diane. It is the SAME bad path (same names) that lead to a negative outcome. The unseen character has via Adam "character" chosen Camilla Rhodes (bad path) but so has Betty. But Betty and Adam (and all) make up the "character" of the unseen mind.


My understanding of the Unified Field (as it relates to meditation) derives directly from Lynchs own description of transcending through layers of consciousness to reach a point of pure consciousness and experience bliss. This is Lynchs vision and I am able to relate it to MD by interpreting what I see contained within the film. I began to relate the experience to the Unified Field after reading Lynchs description when in the process of exploring the film. My experience has been like a journey as I transcended through various POVs that originally sought a physical real world solution but increasingly evolved into non-physical inner world understanding. The explanations I originally attempted to fit all required making up some events outside the film and were for me unsatisfactory. This is also how other explanations feel to me. I tend to perceive MD as involving the viewer in an artistic depiction of physical world illusion and inner mental world reality. Most explanations I have read seek to create unseen events outside of the actual film that I have come to associate with the depiction of the illusion. I read an interview in which Lynch spoke of making a negative in order to show a positive. That is kind of how I see MD. Lynch shows us the confusion, ignorance and suffering in order to illustrate the bliss.

Lynch shows us desire (Hollywood/Rita/Jewels/Wealth/Power) leading to suffering and negativity. It is easy to see with Diane but more confusing with Betty. But Betty deviates from her path and succumbs to being led by desire to disappear. This relates to our human nature seeking to (ignorantly) repeatedly satisfy desire in the physical world and remain unaware of how to eliminate the internal negativity.

It can be perceived as a dream/reality but the reality requires viewers to make certain accommodations. The very first is the lighting in the awakening scene that is not based on reality and is artistic symbolism intended to be interpreted using the language of the film.

I have found this POV to have a meaningful moral message regarding the self abuse we do to ourselves that lead to negativity (suffering/hate/fear/anger/selfishness/pain/obsession/greed etc.). I further believe it relates very strongly to the artist own known beliefs and experiences. I am aware viewers here object to explanations that claim to be what Lynch intended but this perspective is fulfilling if completely understood. I struggle at some levels but feel certain it is a good path. I have found it remarkably fun and simple on most levels once beginning to explore it as an inner mental landscape (perhaps like a viewer might imagine the Wizard of OZ?).

I/m sure some of the Buddhist undertones are there. As well as the unified field.

I'm just not sure they are what drive the story. There is framework and symmetry.

For me it is an artistic allegorical portrayal of philosophical concepts. I am not a film/literary student and may not understand what constitutes "framework/symmetry" as applied to cinema but this film spoke to me in ways I could not have imagined as I explored it. It has opened my eyes and improved my own life in unexpectedly positive ways. I hadn't given it much thought but perhaps the idea that drives the story for me isseeing the film (world/life/ourselves) as we think/want to see it as opposed to how it (film/world/life) "is". I can remain "inside" the film ("as film is")and find a message that relates to our universal human experience. Perhaps that is the "framework"? I find the film relates to important philosophical concepts which raises the film above an engaging puzzle/entertainment or the story of an individual. It is done in a remarkably creative way that involves each viewer as an integral element of the total artistic expression. Of course the film can be perceived in other ways but they just became less fulfilling for me once I began to discover (enlightened to) this path. I still struggle on some matters but have continued to gain further understanding.

There's nothing wrong with getting philosophical messages out of the movies, but that doesn't preclude a logical framework such as a mobius strip or a film within a film

Here's an example of I'm looking at:

Fact: Rita sleeping on the Havenhurst bed is a mirror image of the blonde girl sleeping in SB #17.

Implication: Brunette is the dreaming host of Adam's story. Blonde is the dreaming host of Betty's story.

Since the brunette is dreaming inside of Blonde's dream (she's on the same level as Betty), the blonde's dream is superimposed over the brunette's dream.

I find many explanations difficult to comprehend and I have equal difficulty explaining my own.

Yes you enjoy exploring and perceiving as a film within a film. MD is a film and there is a film being made. I think viewers can legitimacy see what they want. I believe there exists a means to see this as symbolic allegory that can become a complete and unified whole. This is largely driven by my impression of Lynch and his work. Metaphor is how he directs, speaks and writes so I can logically presume he will make use of this in his creative artistry.

Symbolically we all have our own film inside our own heads. MD as a real (reel) film uses light to be reflected into our heads and seems an artistic representation of our own inner reality when repeatedly experiencing negativity. Understanding the film can (symbolically) relieve the negativity. I believe the underlying message is what matters for me in MD.

---

Fact: Rita sleeping on the Havenhurst bed is a mirror image of the blonde girl sleeping in SB #17.

Implication: Brunette is the dreaming host of Adam's story. Blonde is the dreaming host of Betty's story.

Since the brunette is dreaming inside of Blonde's dream (she's on the same level as Betty), the blonde's dream is superimposed over the brunette's dream.

---

I am sorry (and I do not mean to demean your interpretation), I have read this before but I still have no idea what you mean. Are you certain they are even dreaming? Personally, I am unable to see why dreams would be superimposed since it is something I would associate with fantasy. Neither am I aware of anything to suggest this is something Lynch has a strong interest in portraying. Is there an idea or meaningful point to these two stories that has some meaning? An empty framework or mobius strip(?) by themselves might seem like an appealing intellectual exercise but Is there something I am missing? I would be disappointed if Lynch were simply creating a puzzle or some meaningless activity. The implication and associations seem tenuous but you would have a better understanding.

Laura is actually shown in the film sleeping prior to Dan and Herb at Winkies and the chain call and awakes afterwards. I can use the sequencing to interpret this to have observable implications regarding Winkies and chaincall. I am unaware of any similar bracketing to suggest this for BiB.

I admit this BiB is one that I still struggle on but feel have a reasonable interpretation. I do see these characters you mention as related to each other but interpret things differently. What I see is that they each face opposite directions and are not shown together except by some photoshop manipiulation not provided by Lynch. It may be a mirror image or perhaps a negative or opposite image but the same can be said about Diane in bed too or the corpse.

Cowboy speaks the line Hey pretty girl at the same time that we see the BiB so he is speaking to HER. Since she is not Naomi nor Laura she can be presumed to be someone (something) else. Then we see Cowboy smiling then we see the corpse. This can suggest the unseen character (of which Cowboy and all others are a part of) had expected to awaken as a happy camper but it has not happened. Then an unsmiling Cowboy closes the door (disappointed-not happy) and the fade from black as Diane awakens. It is worth noting that all of the transitions to this point are fade to/from black. The scene where Diane awakens is done with lighting that comes from inside rising upwards from her feet before the light through the window is visible, a technique to further suggest a symbolic unreal/unenlightening that is coming from a closed and darkened place rather that the light of day. I might interpret the BiB as a good character(istic) that does not awaken due to the bad choices made previously. Instead something bad has happened and Diane has been created. From my POV, choices made will determine how life will be. This is noted as Adam says the line Camilla and I are going to BE at the dinner party. Note we expect him to say married but that is not what we hear in the film. Selfishness and materialism, heartless self-centeredness are going to BE and represented by the evolution of Camilla and Adam (who has chosen the Camilla Road=Path=Rhodes. The result of bad choices (path=road=Rhodes) born of desire and ignorance.

---

What I see is that they each face opposite directions and are not shown together except by some photoshop manipiulation not provided by Lynch. It may be a mirror image or perhaps a negative or opposite image but the same can be said about Diane in bed too or the corpse.

---

LOL it goes BiB > corpse > Diane
They are mirror opposites of Rita lying on the bed. You're saying Diane is on Rita's level and not Bib?

---

Cowboy speaks the line Hey pretty girl at the same time that we see the BiB so he is speaking to HER.

---

Correct.

---

Since she is not Naomi nor Laura she can be presumed to be someone (something) else. Then we see Cowboy smiling then we see the corpse. This can suggest the unseen character (of which Cowboy and all others are a part of) had expected to awaken as a happy camper but it has not happened. Then an unsmiling Cowboy closes the door (disappointed-not happy) and the fade from black as Diane awakens.

---

Wait. We know the Cowboy is one of the forces that is pushing Adam to cast the girl who is called 'pretty' at the board room meeting. We see her later at the party shortly before, you guessed it, the Cowboy passes by. So wouldn't the logical choice for BiB be Melissa George (or the unnamed character she's playing?)

Another possibility is that there's a rotation of blondes that take the role. George is her in the cycle we see. Lori Heuring was her previously. Maybe Riffel is next. Or Crider. Something like that.

Each cycle (we might be on #3 because Dan talks about a dream he's already had twice) Adam is given a new girl he must select and Luigi spits out the next espresso on the list.

I'm of the opinion that Diane's story is repeating over and over again. The actress playing her goes to sleep, is killed, enters bardo, opens the box and leaves the story, replaced by the next in line, who by helping the previous results in Diane waking up in the same bummer story over and over.

The cycle only breaks when Diane avoids the hit. Something like that. No?