Why does it have to be a dream?
Leslie Haynes
I've been lurking for a few months and wanted to put in my few cents worth
of opinion.
First, I would like to say that I have really enjoyed reading all your posts
though I can't say that I agree with all of them. But food for thought is a
good thing.
Second, it's my belief that art is subjective, and no theory is really
"right". What's right for one person may not work for another.
I believe that Mullholland Drive could work as a dream, but I don't feel it
really is one. I feel that much of the film revolves around the blue box
and that the box is the key between the two worlds, that of Betty and Rita,
and that of Diane and Camilla. I feel that both worlds exist and probably
exist at the same time; they are both realities.
That is most of the characters from the first part of the movie show up in
the second part, but as different people. In another reality, they have a
different role.
I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone, but let me know if you have
any thoughts on this. I'd be happy to explain more if anyone wants to hear
it.
Thanks,
Leslie
doug lauber
There are psychological relationships between the dream section
and the awake section. How do you explain those? Looking at
the psychology, points to the dream idea. Lynch shows Diane
climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film for a reason. -doug
John Howells
That was my thought when I first saw the movie. I thought "parallel
universe". Later I leaned toward the dream theory, but I have to admit
that the alternate reality thing seems more likely and explains a lot
of things, such as the homeless guy behind Winkies ("he's the one that's
doing it") and the whole notion of the blue box, not to mention the
"where is Ruth" question. Why, she's in the apartment all along - in
another reality. There are hints that she senses something going on
in the other reality, but never quite puts it together.
--
John Howells
how...@punkhart.com
http://www.punkhart.com
CPJ_II
>
> There are psychological relationships between the dream section
> and the awake section. How do you explain those? Looking at
> the psychology, points to the dream idea. Lynch shows Diane
> climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film for a reason.
Sorry to nitpick, but the movie does _not_ show Diane (or anyone else)
"climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film".
The early shot, with the camera slowly moving from the floor, over the
bedclothes and eventually towards the pillow until a fade to black,
could be interpreted in many ways.
Moreover, no actor of either sex is photographed (or otherwise depicted)
"climbing into bed".
C.
doug lauber
> doug lauber wrote:
> >
> > There are psychological relationships between the dream section
> > and the awake section. How do you explain those? Looking at
> > the psychology, points to the dream idea. Lynch shows Diane
> > climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film for a reason.
>
> Sorry to nitpick, but the movie does _not_ show Diane (or anyone else)
> "climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film".
>
> The early shot, with the camera slowly moving from the floor, over the
> bedclothes and eventually towards the pillow until a fade to black,
> could be interpreted in many ways.
>
That's interesting. Tell us some of those 'many ways'. -doug
Trichome
CPJ_II <charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> doug lauber wrote:
> >
> > There are psychological relationships between the dream section
> > and the awake section. How do you explain those? Looking at
> > the psychology, points to the dream idea. Lynch shows Diane
> > climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film for a reason.
>
> Sorry to nitpick, but the movie does _not_ show Diane (or anyone else)
> "climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film".
In the Betty "alternate reality" (which I don't believe in), that's
Diane Selwyn's bed, with her blankets. In the dingy Diane "reality",
that's also Diane Selwyn's bed. To believe that was anyone other than
Diane, lying down in Diane's bed, would be obtuse.
> The early shot, with the camera slowly moving from the floor, over the
> bedclothes and eventually towards the pillow until a fade to black,
> could be interpreted in many ways.
>
> Moreover, no actor of either sex is photographed (or otherwise depicted)
> "climbing into bed".
"Photographed", no.
Depicted, yes, the p.o.v. shot depicts a heavy breather descending
into Diane's bed. Or perhaps you think that was a heavy breathing movie
camera, depicted descending into Diane's bed?
Trichome
Trichome
james <progres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Leslie,
>
> I like this idea. As I've said before, there are definitely at least two
> different possibilities, and we now have a valid third, all three of
> which work.
All possibilities are equal;
but some animals are more equal than others.
> Lynch has said in interviews that his works often don't have "answers,"
> and he seems to get off on discussions like the kind that we have here.
> For my part, I don't believe Lynch even knows what the full explanation
> for the film is - there isn't one. Or, at least there wasn't one, until
> viewers created one ...
I know it's fashionable to believe that Lynch doesn't have precise
meanings for each element of his productions, but it's simply not true.
I have seen DL quoted, that there is to him a unique and precise meaning
(or meanings) for (nearly) each element. The viewers bring additional,
non-author interpretations; and those interpretations are kaliedoscopic
fireworks stemming from the source. Great, I love those chaotic
guesses, too. The more non-stupid interpretations the film engenders,
all the more credit to the filmmaker.
Fine. But I aspire to understand what David Lynch meant.
I think he's a wise, spiritual (not religious) man, and apart from
his technical skills and his art products, I admire HIM. I'm much less
interested in an agenda which attempts to find that all, or many,
non-author interpretations are equally valid as DL's personal expression.
Trichome
Trichome
"Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> Second, it's my belief that art is subjective, and no theory is really
> "right". What's right for one person may not work for another.
That's a statement of personal philosophy.
I was an Art History major.
Not everything is subjective.
Surely we can agree that any concrete insights are superior to
unjustifiable speculations? There are some interpretations which are
superior to others, and there may even be one interpretation which is
superior to all others, a wholly sufficient and relatively simple
explanation. That most concise, accurate description of an art object
is to be much devoutly sought after, to my way of thinking.
So I, too, am making a personal statement of philosophy.
I am an elitist, in that I believe in superior insights.
The quality of reasoning is, largely, not subjective.
Where Lynch is concerned, there can be ways of speaking precisely
about what his films offer us. I aspire to know his methods and
meanings. What John Q. Anyfilmgoer thinks happened, can not possibly be
as interesting or informative, because DL has imagination enough to
dwarf us fans and essayists all.
> I believe that Mullholland Drive could work as a dream, but I don't feel it
> really is one. I feel that much of the film revolves around the blue box
> and that the box is the key between the two worlds, that of Betty and Rita,
> and that of Diane and Camilla. I feel that both worlds exist and probably
> exist at the same time; they are both realities.
The problem with your approach is, there has to be a translation
matrix, to transform that one particular world into that other one. Why
choose either the Betty or Diane world for inclusion in Lynch's film,
and why choose the other to contrast and compare with that first choice?
Do you see this as a time-travel-like story, where the big deal is
that someone, something travels crossover to another dimension, thereby
altering the natural flow of events?
See, parallel worlds, that's a neat literary device, to be sure. The
Universe and physics do not, to anyone's knowledge, actually work that
way. That device has to serve an emotional purpose. What is learned by
comparing the two Naomi's, or Rita with Camilla? Is one happier, better
than the other? Could that be the point of the film? No.
Diane dreamt herself into a better life; but the ideal dream gave way
under the crushing force of memory.
> That is most of the characters from the first part of the movie show up in
> the second part, but as different people. In another reality, they have a
> different role.
In my interpretation, this device makes sense, because this is one
way dreams work. Do you know the TZ episode (Classic and mid-80's
versions) where a dreamer every night imagines himself on death row, but
the actors playing the roles switch when his dream repeats?
Your interpretation fails to say anything about why expresso Luigi
attended the dinner party, or why Adam's hotel manager should be the
host at Club Silencio. What is it to mean, that they have other roles
in other dimensions? Heinlein's Number of the Beast posited a near
infinite set of parallel Earths, each an arbitrarily small divergence
apart from each other. So why bother to showcase those two specific
chosen realities? Surely, their selections were not arbitrary. We can
do much better than settling for that conclusion.
> I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone, but let me know if you have
> any thoughts on this. I'd be happy to explain more if anyone wants to hear
> it.
You are more than welcome to try.
Make your best case.
Trichome
Leslie Haynes
"james" <progres...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3D6E891A...@yahoo.com...
> Hi Leslie,
>
> I like this idea. As I've said before, there are definitely at least two
> different possibilities, and we now have a valid third, all three of
> which work.
>
> and he seems to get off on discussions like the kind that we have here.
> For my part, I don't believe Lynch even knows what the full explanation
> for the film is - there isn't one. Or, at least there wasn't one, until
> viewers created one ...
I see what you mean. Creativity is a very intuitive process, and I think
that while one must be aware of what he is doing, a large amount of creating
something is through feeling it. I've experienced it myself many times.
The best thing about art is that it's open to interpretation.
>
> Best,
> James
Leslie Haynes
"Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:prophit1970-036D...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> In article <3D6E891A...@yahoo.com>,
> james <progres...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Leslie,
> >
> > I like this idea. As I've said before, there are definitely at least two
> > different possibilities, and we now have a valid third, all three of
> > which work.
>
> All possibilities are equal;
> but some animals are more equal than others.
>
> > Lynch has said in interviews that his works often don't have "answers,"
> > and he seems to get off on discussions like the kind that we have here.
> > For my part, I don't believe Lynch even knows what the full explanation
> > for the film is - there isn't one. Or, at least there wasn't one, until
> > viewers created one ...
>
> I know it's fashionable to believe that Lynch doesn't have precise
> meanings for each element of his productions, but it's simply not true.
> I have seen DL quoted, that there is to him a unique and precise meaning
> (or meanings) for (nearly) each element. The viewers bring additional,
> non-author interpretations; and those interpretations are kaliedoscopic
> fireworks stemming from the source. Great, I love those chaotic
> guesses, too. The more non-stupid interpretations the film engenders,
> all the more credit to the filmmaker.
I can see what you mean, but I don't think every little detail in his films
have some deep meaning. I've seen discussions here about "don't drink all
the Coke" and Aunt Ruth's luggage, which to me are relatively simple to
understand. It's the same in real life. Not everything that happens to a
person has some deeper meaning that's going to change their lives.
>
> Fine. But I aspire to understand what David Lynch meant.
>
> I think he's a wise, spiritual (not religious) man, and apart from
> his technical skills and his art products, I admire HIM. I'm much less
> interested in an agenda which attempts to find that all, or many,
> non-author interpretations are equally valid as DL's personal expression.
I admire him as well. But how are we to know which non-author theories are
valid and which aren't?
>
>
> Trichome
Leslie Haynes
"doug lauber" <dugs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D6E8C4D...@earthlink.net...
I'm going to compare Mullholland Drive to a doomed relationship, which is
essentially what Diane and Camilla had. Maybe under other circumstances
things would have worked out for them, which is something I'm sure every
person on this newsgroup has felt in his or her own life before. I feel
that DL showed us these other circumstances through the first part of the
film, in Betty and Rita's story.
If that doesn't answer your question, then let me know what psychological
relationships you're talking about, okay?
>
>
Leslie Haynes
"John Howells" <how...@punkhart.com> wrote in message
news:kcwb9.103066$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
It just always made sense to me. Once the blue box is opened, we're
introduced to this totally different world. The blue box, to my way of
thinking, is a gateway.
Like I said before, I do think the dream theory could work as well. But to
me, it explains absolutely nothing about the blue box or Club Silencio, both
of which I think are extremely important to the film.
Leslie Haynes
> In article <aklui2$n51$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > Second, it's my belief that art is subjective, and no theory is really
> > "right". What's right for one person may not work for another.
>
> That's a statement of personal philosophy.
> I was an Art History major.
> Not everything is subjective.
Yes, it is a statement of personal philosophy. Oh, and I'm an English
major, but I loved my Art History class.
When I say subjective, I mean we all see things differently according to our
values, beliefs, the way our minds work.
>
> Surely we can agree that any concrete insights are superior to
> unjustifiable speculations? There are some interpretations which are
> superior to others, and there may even be one interpretation which is
> superior to all others, a wholly sufficient and relatively simple
> explanation. That most concise, accurate description of an art object
> is to be much devoutly sought after, to my way of thinking.
How can you use the words "interpretations" and "superior" in the same
sentence? How can you say that anyone's "interpretation" of anything is
"accurate"? "Interpretation" involves finding and presenting the meaning of
something. Meaning is subjective.
>
> So I, too, am making a personal statement of philosophy.
> I am an elitist, in that I believe in superior insights.
> The quality of reasoning is, largely, not subjective.
Superior insights? Again, I'm not getting you. And this doesn't really
involve reason, does it? Reason requires logic, which requires objectivity.
So if this is so, there is no such thing as superior insights. Insights are
subjective.
>
> Where Lynch is concerned, there can be ways of speaking precisely
> about what his films offer us. I aspire to know his methods and
> meanings. What John Q. Anyfilmgoer thinks happened, can not possibly be
> as interesting or informative, because DL has imagination enough to
> dwarf us fans and essayists all.
>
>
> > I believe that Mullholland Drive could work as a dream, but I don't feel
it
> > really is one. I feel that much of the film revolves around the blue
box
> > and that the box is the key between the two worlds, that of Betty and
Rita,
> > and that of Diane and Camilla. I feel that both worlds exist and
probably
> > exist at the same time; they are both realities.
>
> The problem with your approach is, there has to be a translation
> matrix, to transform that one particular world into that other one. Why
> choose either the Betty or Diane world for inclusion in Lynch's film,
> and why choose the other to contrast and compare with that first choice?
Betty was a natural choice to begin the film, IMO, because of the emotional
element that we experience when we see her "change" into this different
person, Diane. It makes the film extremely heartbreaking to see the
happiness of the first part and then the sadness of the second. I don't
think it would have had nearly the same effect if we would have started with
Diane and ended with Betty.
Translation matrix.....care to clarify?
>
> Do you see this as a time-travel-like story, where the big deal is
> that someone, something travels crossover to another dimension, thereby
> altering the natural flow of events?
Possibly.
>
> See, parallel worlds, that's a neat literary device, to be sure. The
> Universe and physics do not, to anyone's knowledge, actually work that
> way. That device has to serve an emotional purpose. What is learned by
> comparing the two Naomi's, or Rita with Camilla? Is one happier, better
> than the other? Could that be the point of the film? No.
Why not?
>
> Diane dreamt herself into a better life; but the ideal dream gave way
> under the crushing force of memory.
>
> > That is most of the characters from the first part of the movie show up
in
> > the second part, but as different people. In another reality, they have
a
> > different role.
>
> In my interpretation, this device makes sense, because this is one
> way dreams work. Do you know the TZ episode (Classic and mid-80's
> versions) where a dreamer every night imagines himself on death row, but
> the actors playing the roles switch when his dream repeats?
>
> Your interpretation fails to say anything about why expresso Luigi
> attended the dinner party, or why Adam's hotel manager should be the
> host at Club Silencio. What is it to mean, that they have other roles
> in other dimensions? Heinlein's Number of the Beast posited a near
> infinite set of parallel Earths, each an arbitrarily small divergence
> apart from each other. So why bother to showcase those two specific
> chosen realities? Surely, their selections were not arbitrary. We can
> do much better than settling for that conclusion.
Yes, in my opinion, they do have roles in other realities.
Oh, and I didn't catch that Adam's hotel manager was the host at Club
Silencio as well. Thanks.
CPJ_II
> CPJ_II wrote:
> > doug lauber wrote:
> > >
> > > There are psychological relationships between the dream section
> > > and the awake section. How do you explain those? Looking at
> > > the psychology, points to the dream idea. Lynch shows Diane
> > > climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film for a reason.
> >
> > Sorry to nitpick, but the movie does _not_ show Diane (or anyone else)
> > "climbing into her bed at the beginning of the film".
>
> In the Betty "alternate reality" (which I don't believe in), that's
> Diane Selwyn's bed, with her blankets. In the dingy Diane "reality",
> that's also Diane Selwyn's bed. To believe that was anyone other than
> Diane, lying down in Diane's bed, would be obtuse.
I'd say the shot inherently is very obtuse. The breathing sounds are
dynamically exaggerated and, to my ears at least, seem more like the
sounds of someone _already_ in a deep sleep rather than the sounds of
someone even falling asleep (never mind getting into bed [which the
scene certainly does not depict visually]).
Possibly we're meant to assume the person is already heavily zonked on
drugs (rec and/or med) and is literally collapsing into bed and sleep.
But if this were the case, the camera movement would need to be much
faster than what is done in the sequence. And if the person collapsed
face downward as the camera's p.o.v. would tend to suggest, in reality
they might quickly suffocate to death, especially if they are already
heavily stoned, which Diane seems to be when she does get up almost two
hours into the film. Moreover, there are no sounds (never mind visuals)
to suggest someone either physically moving onto the bed and/or settling
into it.
Contrary to what most people seem to assume, the hand-held camera motion
over the bedclothes then going out of focus as the camera moves closer
to the pillow and the shot fades to black does not IMO automatically
indicate to the viewer (particularly, right at the start of the film,
and assuming the viewer has not read about the movie and has no
preconceptionas of any kind about its story and style) that it
represents someone "climbing into bed" -- least of all from a
writer/dirctor whose work tends to be as ambiguous as Lynch often
(probably more often than not) tends to be.
> > The early shot, with the camera slowly moving from the floor, over the
> > bedclothes and eventually towards the pillow until a fade to black,
> > could be interpreted in many ways.
In most movies (even Lynch's) the majority of the camera work is done in
a way to make the viewer the observer, albeit an involved observer
(especially in movies such as "MD" which have a strong suspense
component) of what is happening in the film.
While it certainly is not uncommon for camera shots sometimes to
represent directly someone moving (ie, sneaking up behind another
character just before attacking or otherwise surprising them), without
some kind of advance prompting or preparation viewers, I'd suggest, are
less likely to expect this at the very start of a film.
FWIW, to my ears the breathing sounds in this sequence reminded me of
the breathing sounds in "2001" when Dave was shutting off HAL.
> > Moreover, no actor of either sex is photographed (or otherwise depicted)
> > "climbing into bed".
>
> "Photographed", no.
>
> Depicted, yes, the p.o.v. shot depicts a heavy breather descending
> into Diane's bed. Or perhaps you think that was a heavy breathing movie
> camera, depicted descending into Diane's bed?
Please see my earlier comments. I'm quite prepared to believe and
accept that Lynch intended the sequence to represent someone falling
asleep. I'm just saying that the way he chose to do this was pretty
obtuse, and not likely to be clear to most viewers until they've seen
the entire movie (for most of us, more htan just once <g>).
C.
Craig Franck
news:ako53v$170$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I can see what you mean, but I don't think every little detail in his films
> have some deep meaning. I've seen discussions here about "don't drink all
> the Coke" and Aunt Ruth's luggage, which to me are relatively simple to
> understand. It's the same in real life. Not everything that happens to a
> person has some deeper meaning that's going to change their lives.
Not every detail, but when something stands out it generally
means something. Certain subconscious elements are bursting
through to the story. Betty urging Rita not to drink all the Coke
could be Diane protecting her drug supply. I don't think this
is particularly far fetched when you consider MD the song
"Hotel California" seem to be inhabiting similar realities.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
Trichome
"Craig Franck" <craig....@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:ako53v$170$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > I can see what you mean, but I don't think every little detail in his films
> > have some deep meaning. I've seen discussions here about "don't drink all
> > the Coke" and Aunt Ruth's luggage, which to me are relatively simple to
> > understand. It's the same in real life. Not everything that happens to a
> > person has some deeper meaning that's going to change their lives.
>
> Not every detail, but when something stands out it generally
> means something. Certain subconscious elements are bursting
> through to the story. Betty urging Rita not to drink all the Coke
> could be Diane protecting her drug supply.
You are correct, that non-Betty 1950's ears can't hear "Coke", in a
film known to be constructed with such thoughtfulness, without also
thinking about cocaine. We know Betty would never think that way, so we
don't take the drug sense as the intended meaning. The thought of
cocaine does reverberate with wondering about the origin of the money in
Rita's handbag; personally, I feel that blackmail was more likely the
money's source, associated with "Rita's" belonging to a high-class
escort service.
> I don't think this is particularly far fetched when you consider MD
> the song "Hotel California" seem to be inhabiting similar realities.
I'm fairly certain that Lynch never has mentioned this particular
drug in any films.
Warm smell of colitas,
rising up though the air,
----------------------------------------------
A Straight Dope Classic, 15-Aug-1997
In the song "Hotel California," what does "colitas" mean?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_001.html
----------------------------------------------
With a very high degree of botanical accuracy, I can say that
trichomes stud the surface of colitas; and what covers the trichomes?
The B52's Good Stuff.
Obscurely yours,
Trichome
(Me in Honey)
Trichome
"Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> "Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:prophit1970-02CD...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> > In article <aklui2$n51$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Second, it's my belief that art is subjective, and no theory is really
> > > "right". What's right for one person may not work for another.
> >
> > That's a statement of personal philosophy.
> > I was an Art History major.
> > Not everything is subjective.
>
> Yes, it is a statement of personal philosophy. Oh, and I'm an English
> major, but I loved my Art History class.
> When I say subjective, I mean we all see things differently according to our
> values, beliefs, the way our minds work.
Yes, that's much the same thing I meant by subjective. I don't see
that as a hopeless impediment.
If we attempt to recognize the particular distortions that our
individual minds project, we may (scientifically) aspire to a less
subjective understanding. Some kinds of subjectivity, like one's
preferences, can never be reduced; but there's a bunch of poor analyses
out there which hide behind the excuse of the universality of
subjectivity. Subjectivity is not a universal, overwhelming force.
Arts may be documented, summarized, described, with a fairly large
degree of objectivity.
Values, beliefs, that stuff shouldn't matter to a historian. At the
final stage, when you decide whether the final product has merit, then
you can use your values.
> > Surely we can agree that any concrete insights are superior to
> > unjustifiable speculations? There are some interpretations which are
> > superior to others, and there may even be one interpretation which is
> > superior to all others, a wholly sufficient and relatively simple
> > explanation. That most concise, accurate description of an art object
> > is to be much devoutly sought after, to my way of thinking.
>
> How can you use the words "interpretations" and "superior" in the same
> sentence? How can you say that anyone's "interpretation" of anything is
> "accurate"? "Interpretation" involves finding and presenting the meaning of
> something. Meaning is subjective.
Maybe I'm not talking about finding the meaning, exactly.
An interpretation based in poor observations and inconsistent
reasoning is worse than subjectivity. Perhaps you would prefer a
different word to "interpretation". The interpretation of an equation
is more objective; the interpretation of the Barnett Newman abstract
expressionism is less objective - but an informed, considered discussion
of his art is far from absolutely subjective. Better films tend towards
distinct statements (though those statements may be ambiguous or
multiple). The meaning of those statements is subjective, socially
constructed, but a restatement of film elements doesn't have to be so
doomed by definition.
> So if this is so, there is no such thing as superior insights. Insights are
> subjective.
There's an alarm that goes off in me, in the presence of such extreme
belief in subjectivity. I'm sure this concern is something I bring to
the discussion. Has anyone ever pointed out the limitations of
subjectivity, taken as an absolute article of faith? Can we not attempt
to tease the objective fraction apart from that which is necessarily
subjective? I wanted to be in the hard sciences, and I believe that
experiences have a mix of objective and subjective components.
> > So I, too, am making a personal statement of philosophy.
> > I am an elitist, in that I believe in superior insights.
> > The quality of reasoning is, largely, not subjective.
>
> Superior insights? Again, I'm not getting you. And this doesn't really
> involve reason, does it? Reason requires logic, which requires objectivity.
Reason requires logic, when the behavior being studied is logical.
To the extent that one can be objective, one may reason.
Reason, argue, claim, assert, posit - I'd take any of these.
I'll try again.
The quality of one's clarity of thought is not subjective,
and many arguments fail for lack of such clarity, not because the
subjectivity is inherently insurmountable.
The worship of the belief in absolute Subjectivity can be, (I say,
CAN be) a refuge for scoundrels who can not approach objectivity,
because they bring more baggage than information to the challenge, or
who lack observant senses.
> > The problem with your approach is, there has to be a translation
> > matrix, to transform that one particular world into that other one. Why
> > choose either the Betty or Diane world for inclusion in Lynch's film,
> > and why choose the other to contrast and compare with that first choice?
>
> Betty was a natural choice to begin the film, IMO, because of the emotional
> element that we experience when we see her "change" into this different
> person, Diane. It makes the film extremely heartbreaking to see the
> happiness of the first part and then the sadness of the second. I don't
> think it would have had nearly the same effect if we would have started with
> Diane and ended with Betty.
> Translation matrix.....care to clarify?
Glad you asked, because I did leave that rather unexplained.
An array of variables, a set of vectors, a table of the meanings of
the various individual elements of Diane's dream, may be transformed
into the table of meanings of the elements of her real life, by
multiplication by another matrix of numbers. That transformation is the
relationship between an idealized dream and an unsympathetic reality.
If one knows how dreams may work, how elements from waking memory
are treated in dreams, one may un-encode the idealized dream or the
reality, from the other of the two (though you need the inverse of the
matrix, to go in the other direction).
To have profundity, the whole matrix/table has to add up to something
real. Human longing in dreams, Diane's story told in two parts,
subjectivity counter-pointed with an opposite subjectivity - that's a
matrix with OOMPH! That's a powerful statement of personal philosophy
and ethics. Abjectly harsh honesty, and convincing self-delusion,
leaving us with a
> > Do you see this as a time-travel-like story, where the big deal is
> > that someone, something travels crossover to another dimension, thereby
> > altering the natural flow of events?
>
> Possibly.
See, that's not a very rewarding interpretation of the story. I love
sci-fi, but what is the insight into human experience? What is the
heart of the piece? Who cares if it is possible to move from one world
into a parallel? How does such a gimmick inform me, apart from its fun
potential?
Even then, I don't see what or who travelled from there to here, or
if they/it ever went back.
> > See, parallel worlds, that's a neat literary device, to be sure. The
> > Universe and physics do not, to anyone's knowledge, actually work that
> > way. That device has to serve an emotional purpose. What is learned by
> > comparing the two Naomi's, or Rita with Camilla? Is one happier, better
> > than the other? Could that be the point of the film? No.
>
> Why not?
Betty vs. Diane - I dare you to tell me what great insight we get
from that. You'll be happier if you actually are talented?
You don't even know what happened to Betty, what was learned from her
experiences, if you think that Betty wasn't Diane's self-image in a
dream.
Rita has amnesia, and barely does anything, you want me to believe
that it is meaningful to compare her with Camilla's happiness? Okay,
Camilla's happier - so frickin' what?
> > Your interpretation fails to say anything about why expresso Luigi
> > attended the dinner party, or why Adam's hotel manager should be the
> > host at Club Silencio. What is it to mean, that they have other roles
> > in other dimensions? Heinlein's Number of the Beast posited a near
> > infinite set of parallel Earths, each an arbitrarily small divergence
> > apart from each other. So why bother to showcase those two specific
> > chosen realities? Surely, their selections were not arbitrary. We can
> > do much better than settling for that conclusion.
>
> Yes, in my opinion, they do have roles in other realities.
Well, this is your theory, so it's not my job to guess what you mean.
You have to tell me what they mean.
Those meanings have to approach the profundity achieved with a dream
analysis, or they aren't worth very much in my book.
> Oh, and I didn't catch that Adam's hotel manager was the host at Club
> Silencio as well. Thanks.
Dopples:
Luigi at the party drank from a Winkie's coffee mug.
The Cowboy was in the background at the party.
Rita and Camilla.
Adam and Adam (any resemblance is nearly meaningless)
Betty and Diane
The Camilla photographs.
Joe, the incompetent hit man, and the Joe-faced hit man whom Diane
handed the picture of Camilla.
Trichome
Trichome
> news:prophit1970-036D...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > I think he's a wise, spiritual (not religious) man, and apart from
> > his technical skills and his art products, I admire HIM. I'm much less
> > interested in an agenda which attempts to find that all, or many,
> > non-author interpretations are equally valid as DL's personal expression.
>
> I admire him as well. But how are we to know which non-author
> theories are valid and which aren't?
My goal is to perfect my descriptive skills, and only second is my
desire to understand the Truth. I would say that learning how to tell
the more valid interpretations from the less meaningful ones, is the
business of a lifetime. We know by trying to make case, and by trying
to tear the case down. We know by asking others to do better than our
insights so far.
Trichome
Trichome
CPJ_II <charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
True, the scene is not to be read clearly the first time.
I like how it's not clear cut, but there's a hint, like when the word
"dream" is used by Betty and Dan.
If this were an unambiguous, literal, hard assertion, I think the
film would have diffused the energy that was accumulated while we
thought that Betty/"Rita"/Adam were characters in a real world.
Trichome
CPJ_II
> I wrote:
> [snip]
> > Contrary to what most people seem to assume, the hand-held camera motion
> > over the bedclothes then going out of focus as the camera moves closer
> > to the pillow and the shot fades to black does not IMO automatically
> > indicate to the viewer (particularly, right at the start of the film,
> > and assuming the viewer has not read about the movie and has no
> > preconceptionas of any kind about its story and style) that it
> > represents someone "climbing into bed" -- least of all from a
> > writer/dirctor whose work tends to be as ambiguous as Lynch often
> > (probably more often than not) tends to be.
>
> True, the scene is not to be read clearly the first time.
> I like how it's not clear cut, but there's a hint, like when the word
> "dream" is used by Betty and Dan.
> If this were an unambiguous, literal, hard assertion, I think the
> film would have diffused the energy that was accumulated while we
> thought that Betty/"Rita"/Adam were characters in a real world.
When you rewatch the movie there are a lot of hints, mainly in the
dialog, that all this just might be a dream. But, as I suggested in my
previous post, most people seeing the film for the first time aren't
likely to pick up on this, especially when Lynch does such a good job of
quickly plunging us in at the deep end of so many intriguing characters
and scenarios for the first hour-plus.
Ironically, quite a few of the hints were likely in DL's original script
when he was planning a TV series, rather than the eventual surreal
'dream' movie.
It's made me want to see Bergman's "Wild Strwaberries" again, which IIRC
starts with an extended dream sequence.
C.
Leslie Haynes
>
> > "Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:prophit1970-02CD...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> > > In article <aklui2$n51$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > >
> > > I was an Art History major.
> > > Not everything is subjective.
> >
> > Yes, it is a statement of personal philosophy. Oh, and I'm an English
> > major, but I loved my Art History class.
> > When I say subjective, I mean we all see things differently according to
our
> > values, beliefs, the way our minds work.
>
> Yes, that's much the same thing I meant by subjective. I don't see
> that as a hopeless impediment.
>
> If we attempt to recognize the particular distortions that our
> individual minds project, we may (scientifically) aspire to a less
> subjective understanding. Some kinds of subjectivity, like one's
> preferences, can never be reduced; but there's a bunch of poor analyses
> out there which hide behind the excuse of the universality of
> subjectivity. Subjectivity is not a universal, overwhelming force.
> Arts may be documented, summarized, described, with a fairly large
> degree of objectivity.
>
> Values, beliefs, that stuff shouldn't matter to a historian. At the
> final stage, when you decide whether the final product has merit, then
> you can use your values.
I understand what you mean. And I *do* think that some interpretations make
more sense than others. For instance, the theory that MD is all Dan's
dream. I don't agree, *but* I'm not going to say, "That's wrong". That
interpretation is based on what someone observed in MD, not what I observed.
The way we see little details can make a huge difference in how we interpret
things.
>
>
> > > Surely we can agree that any concrete insights are superior to
> > > unjustifiable speculations? There are some interpretations which are
> > > superior to others, and there may even be one interpretation which is
> > > superior to all others, a wholly sufficient and relatively simple
> > > explanation. That most concise, accurate description of an art object
> > > is to be much devoutly sought after, to my way of thinking.
> >
> > How can you use the words "interpretations" and "superior" in the same
> > sentence? How can you say that anyone's "interpretation" of anything is
> > "accurate"? "Interpretation" involves finding and presenting the
meaning of
> > something. Meaning is subjective.
>
> Maybe I'm not talking about finding the meaning, exactly.
>
> An interpretation based in poor observations and inconsistent
> reasoning is worse than subjectivity. Perhaps you would prefer a
> different word to "interpretation". The interpretation of an equation
> is more objective; the interpretation of the Barnett Newman abstract
> expressionism is less objective - but an informed, considered discussion
> of his art is far from absolutely subjective. Better films tend towards
> distinct statements (though those statements may be ambiguous or
> multiple). The meaning of those statements is subjective, socially
> constructed, but a restatement of film elements doesn't have to be so
> doomed by definition.
Okay, gotcha.
>
>
> > So if this is so, there is no such thing as superior insights. Insights
are
> > subjective.
>
> There's an alarm that goes off in me, in the presence of such extreme
> belief in subjectivity. I'm sure this concern is something I bring to
> the discussion. Has anyone ever pointed out the limitations of
> subjectivity, taken as an absolute article of faith? Can we not attempt
> to tease the objective fraction apart from that which is necessarily
> subjective? I wanted to be in the hard sciences, and I believe that
> experiences have a mix of objective and subjective components.
I agree with you. I just tend to believe that a lot of things are not black
and white. I don't take subjectivity as an article of faith, to quote you.
I just believe that there are not many, if any, absolutes in this world.
>
>
> > > So I, too, am making a personal statement of philosophy.
> > > I am an elitist, in that I believe in superior insights.
> > > The quality of reasoning is, largely, not subjective.
> >
> > Superior insights? Again, I'm not getting you. And this doesn't really
> > involve reason, does it? Reason requires logic, which requires
objectivity.
>
> Reason requires logic, when the behavior being studied is logical.
> To the extent that one can be objective, one may reason.
> Reason, argue, claim, assert, posit - I'd take any of these.
> I'll try again.
> The quality of one's clarity of thought is not subjective,
> and many arguments fail for lack of such clarity, not because the
> subjectivity is inherently insurmountable.
>
> The worship of the belief in absolute Subjectivity can be, (I say,
> CAN be) a refuge for scoundrels who can not approach objectivity,
> because they bring more baggage than information to the challenge, or
> who lack observant senses.
>
>
> > Translation matrix.....care to clarify?
>
> Glad you asked, because I did leave that rather unexplained.
>
> An array of variables, a set of vectors, a table of the meanings of
> the various individual elements of Diane's dream, may be transformed
> into the table of meanings of the elements of her real life, by
> multiplication by another matrix of numbers. That transformation is the
> relationship between an idealized dream and an unsympathetic reality.
>
> If one knows how dreams may work, how elements from waking memory
> are treated in dreams, one may un-encode the idealized dream or the
> reality, from the other of the two (though you need the inverse of the
> matrix, to go in the other direction).
>
> To have profundity, the whole matrix/table has to add up to something
> real. Human longing in dreams, Diane's story told in two parts,
> subjectivity counter-pointed with an opposite subjectivity - that's a
> matrix with OOMPH! That's a powerful statement of personal philosophy
> and ethics. Abjectly harsh honesty, and convincing self-delusion,
> leaving us with a
Have you ever heard of Schrodinger's cat theory? Here's how it goes:
"First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this
stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial
of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it
has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is
both dead and alive, according to quantum law, in a superposition of states.
It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat
that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead
or alive)."
At some point in the story, Diane "creates" this other world. Does she do
it through a dream, a fantasy, or does it just happen? Does she really
create it herself, or does it happen on its own?
But, once Diane orders the hit on Camilla, she has no idea if Camilla is
dead or alive....not until she finds the blue key on her coffee table. In
the meantime, this could be when the story of Betty and Rita occurs.
Because she does not know if Camilla is dead or alive, this "other world"
*can* exist. However, it can only sustain itself for so long. Betty finds
the box in her purse in Club Silencio, where she finds out "it's all an
illusion". They take it back to Aunt Ruth's with the intent to unlock it,
but Betty disappears. Why? Is it because she is no longer Betty, therefore
she *has* to disappear? Whatever the case, when Rita unlocks the box, she
actually undoes herself, bringing reality back.
I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. But this makes sense to
me.
>
>
> > > Do you see this as a time-travel-like story, where the big deal is
> > > that someone, something travels crossover to another dimension,
thereby
> > > altering the natural flow of events?
> >
> > Possibly.
>
> See, that's not a very rewarding interpretation of the story. I love
> sci-fi, but what is the insight into human experience? What is the
> heart of the piece? Who cares if it is possible to move from one world
> into a parallel? How does such a gimmick inform me, apart from its fun
> potential?
Well, I could ask the same question of you. Who cares if Diane is asleep
and has a dream about how things could have been? How does that "gimmick"
inform *me*?
>
> Even then, I don't see what or who travelled from there to here, or
> if they/it ever went back.
>
>
> > > See, parallel worlds, that's a neat literary device, to be sure.
The
> > > Universe and physics do not, to anyone's knowledge, actually work that
> > > way. That device has to serve an emotional purpose. What is learned
by
> > > comparing the two Naomi's, or Rita with Camilla? Is one happier,
better
> > > than the other? Could that be the point of the film? No.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Betty vs. Diane - I dare you to tell me what great insight we get
> from that. You'll be happier if you actually are talented?
It's not a question of anyone vs. anyone, IMO. It's a question of what
could have happened.
>
> You don't even know what happened to Betty, what was learned from her
> experiences, if you think that Betty wasn't Diane's self-image in a
> dream.
You're right, I don't know. But hey, neither do you.
>
> Rita has amnesia, and barely does anything, you want me to believe
> that it is meaningful to compare her with Camilla's happiness? Okay,
> Camilla's happier - so frickin' what?
Did I say anything about comparing the two? I only said that people have
different roles in different "realities".
>
>
> > > Your interpretation fails to say anything about why expresso Luigi
> > > attended the dinner party, or why Adam's hotel manager should be the
> > > host at Club Silencio. What is it to mean, that they have other roles
> > > in other dimensions? Heinlein's Number of the Beast posited a near
> > > infinite set of parallel Earths, each an arbitrarily small divergence
> > > apart from each other. So why bother to showcase those two specific
> > > chosen realities? Surely, their selections were not arbitrary. We
can
> > > do much better than settling for that conclusion.
> >
> > Yes, in my opinion, they do have roles in other realities.
>
> Well, this is your theory, so it's not my job to guess what you mean.
> You have to tell me what they mean.
> Those meanings have to approach the profundity achieved with a dream
> analysis, or they aren't worth very much in my book.
Well, this is close to the dream analysis. And like I said, I don't have
all the answers.
Trichome
"Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:prophit1970-02CD...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
> > If we attempt to recognize the particular distortions that our
> > individual minds project, we may (scientifically) aspire to a less
> > subjective understanding. Some kinds of subjectivity, like one's
> > preferences, can never be reduced; but there's a bunch of poor analyses
> > out there which hide behind the excuse of the universality of
> > subjectivity. Subjectivity is not a universal, overwhelming force.
> > Arts may be documented, summarized, described, with a fairly large
> > degree of objectivity.
> >
> > Values, beliefs, that stuff shouldn't matter to a historian. At the
> > final stage, when you decide whether the final product has merit, then
> > you can use your values.
>
> I understand what you mean. And I *do* think that some interpretations make
> more sense than others. For instance, the theory that MD is all Dan's
> dream. I don't agree, *but* I'm not going to say, "That's wrong". That
> interpretation is based on what someone observed in MD, not what I observed.
> The way we see little details can make a huge difference in how we interpret
> things.
I think people who won't stand up strongly for their beliefs, those
who don't take a stand, make an assertion and back it up, are more
successful socially, and happier. I admire the writer who doesn't
equivocate, who takes a strong position so I can have a strong, specfic
response. So I say, "That's wrong", to bait a stranger across the Ether
into an exercise in reasoning.
> > There's an alarm that goes off in me, in the presence of such extreme
> > belief in subjectivity. I'm sure this concern is something I bring to
> > the discussion. Has anyone ever pointed out the limitations of
> > subjectivity, taken as an absolute article of faith? Can we not attempt
> > to tease the objective fraction apart from that which is necessarily
> > subjective? I wanted to be in the hard sciences, and I believe that
> > experiences have a mix of objective and subjective components.
>
> I agree with you. I just tend to believe that a lot of things are not black
> and white. I don't take subjectivity as an article of faith, to quote you.
> I just believe that there are not many, if any, absolutes in this world.
Surely, I agree that there are many FALSE absolutes which people
harbor, propagate, and perpetrate on/to each other. Iconoclasts attack
false absolutes, and trust me, I come at life with a profound reliance
upon iconclasm.
> Have you ever heard of Schrodinger's cat theory? Here's how it goes:
> "First, we have a living cat and place it in a thick lead box. At this
> stage, there is no question that the cat is alive. We then throw in a vial
> of cyanide and seal the box. We do not know if the cat is alive or if it
> has broken the cyanide capsule and died. Since we do not know, the cat is
> both dead and alive, according to quantum law, in a superposition of states.
> It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat
> that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead
> or alive)."
You're one important detail off. What you need is a radioactive
source which will release the gas if the decay casts off a certain
number of particles into the detector over a given time period. This
bring a quantum level event up to us, magnified to the point where real
world event are affected. Ordinarily, the decay of one particle doesn't
have such influential consequences.
With quantum computing, you take a superconductor and create an
object within which information is transmitted faster than the speed of
light. Again, quantum events poke up into our world, violating common
sense, which is nonsense when thinking about QM.
> At some point in the story, Diane "creates" this other world. Does she do
> it through a dream, a fantasy, or does it just happen? Does she really
> create it herself, or does it happen on its own?
That's how dreams and Tibetan Buddhism work.
> But, once Diane orders the hit on Camilla, she has no idea if Camilla is
> dead or alive....not until she finds the blue key on her coffee table. In
> the meantime, this could be when the story of Betty and Rita occurs.
> Because she does not know if Camilla is dead or alive, this "other world"
> *can* exist. However, it can only sustain itself for so long. Betty finds
> the box in her purse in Club Silencio, where she finds out "it's all an
> illusion". They take it back to Aunt Ruth's with the intent to unlock it,
> but Betty disappears. Why? Is it because she is no longer Betty, therefore
> she *has* to disappear? Whatever the case, when Rita unlocks the box, she
> actually undoes herself, bringing reality back.
> I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers. But this makes sense to
> me.
Like you said, one little piece misread can throw off the whole.
She did live in a state of indecideability, waiting for the key to
appear.
> > See, that's not a very rewarding interpretation of the story. I love
> > sci-fi, but what is the insight into human experience? What is the
> > heart of the piece? Who cares if it is possible to move from one world
> > into a parallel? How does such a gimmick inform me, apart from its fun
> > potential?
>
> Well, I could ask the same question of you. Who cares if Diane is asleep
> and has a dream about how things could have been? How does that "gimmick"
> inform *me*?
Diane is a dreamer, to her detriment. It's the story of nearly all
in Hollywood except the very few who found instant stardom; but it's an
idiot who plays a lottery where the odds are so poor. Diane had nothing
special to offer to directors and producers, but her aspirations and her
delusions told her to press forward, until her negative emotions
consumed her.
Even better, this isn't just any kind of dream. When a Tibetan
Buddhist dies, he or she will dream for a period after death. At first
the dream is ideal, but it's composed of parts of the dreamer, and way
leads unto way until one's own character flaws erode the dream world.
Depending on your reaction to this personal horror, you may demonstrate
some degree of enlightenment, and get a favorable re-incarnation. Or
you could freak out in the sight of your personal horrors, and end up
re-incarnated as a bug.
I think it's really cool to use a faith tradition as the unannounced,
unhinted at, hidden structure of MD and LH. I think it's a truly great
portrait of a woman, triangulated by her desires and disappointments.
> > Betty vs. Diane - I dare you to tell me what great insight we get
> > from that. You'll be happier if you actually are talented?
>
> It's not a question of anyone vs. anyone, IMO. It's a question of what
> could have happened.
They have to be compared with their duplicates. They look the same,
so we are forced to search for meaning in comparing them. One very
powerful comparison gives rise to the notion of Betty as ideally
positive to Diane's depressive outlook. These are two windows into the
character of one person's mind. That's good cinema.
> > You don't even know what happened to Betty, what was learned from her
> > experiences, if you think that Betty wasn't Diane's self-image in a
> > dream.
>
> You're right, I don't know. But hey, neither do you.
But I do know what happened to Betty. She was only real to express a
projection of Diane's persona. She was ridiculous, untenable, a
desperation. She could not continue for long, in light of what she
slowly remembered as her dream progressed.
Trichome
Leslie Haynes
Well, I would love to take the bait; however, it seems rather pointless to
me at this time. I know your views, you know mine; the chances of either
one of us changing our minds are minimal. However, if you want to share
more of your views, I'm sure I would find it fascinating and might be
inclined to comment.
Thanks for filling that in. I posted a very simplified version, and that
one important detail is irrelevant as far as MD goes. I used the cat theory
as a very general analogy.
So you don't feel that Diane could have been Betty, or at least like her?
>
> Even better, this isn't just any kind of dream. When a Tibetan
> Buddhist dies, he or she will dream for a period after death. At first
> the dream is ideal, but it's composed of parts of the dreamer, and way
> leads unto way until one's own character flaws erode the dream world.
> Depending on your reaction to this personal horror, you may demonstrate
> some degree of enlightenment, and get a favorable re-incarnation. Or
> you could freak out in the sight of your personal horrors, and end up
> re-incarnated as a bug.
>
> I think it's really cool to use a faith tradition as the unannounced,
> unhinted at, hidden structure of MD and LH. I think it's a truly great
> portrait of a woman, triangulated by her desires and disappointments.
That's very interesting. If I believed in an afterlife, I'd definitely go
with reincarnation.
So do you think that Diane was dreaming all this after her death?
>
>
>
> > > Betty vs. Diane - I dare you to tell me what great insight we get
> > > from that. You'll be happier if you actually are talented?
> >
> > It's not a question of anyone vs. anyone, IMO. It's a question of what
> > could have happened.
>
> They have to be compared with their duplicates. They look the same,
> so we are forced to search for meaning in comparing them. One very
> powerful comparison gives rise to the notion of Betty as ideally
> positive to Diane's depressive outlook. These are two windows into the
> character of one person's mind. That's good cinema.
On a side note: When I first saw MD in the theatre, I wasn't too sure if
Naomi Watts was both Betty and Diane. She looked and acted SO different.
When I saw it again, I was sure it was her playing both roles. (It has not
much to do with what you said, but I just thought I'd share. :)
>
>
> > > You don't even know what happened to Betty, what was learned from
her
> > > experiences, if you think that Betty wasn't Diane's self-image in a
> > > dream.
> >
> > You're right, I don't know. But hey, neither do you.
>
> But I do know what happened to Betty. She was only real to express a
> projection of Diane's persona. She was ridiculous, untenable, a
> desperation. She could not continue for long, in light of what she
> slowly remembered as her dream progressed.
Why do you think she disappeared when she did?
>
>
> Trichome
Trichome
"Leslie Haynes" <bizn...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> "Trichome" <proph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:prophit1970-AAFE...@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
> > I think people who won't stand up strongly for their beliefs, those
> > who don't take a stand, make an assertion and back it up, are more
> > successful socially, and happier. I admire the writer who doesn't
> > equivocate, who takes a strong position so I can have a strong, specfic
> > response. So I say, "That's wrong", to bait a stranger across the Ether
> > into an exercise in reasoning.
>
> Well, I would love to take the bait; however, it seems rather pointless to
> me at this time.
"to bait...into an exercise in Reasoning".
Exercise builds your brain muscle.
> I know your views, you know mine; the chances of either
> one of us changing our minds are minimal. However, if you want to share
> more of your views, I'm sure I would find it fascinating and might be
> inclined to comment.
A dialogue such as USENET is a matter of synthesis and antithesis.
If you say something obvious, or say nothing much at all, I can't sum
that statement, synthesis and/or antithesis, against what I think I know
and feel. Bold statements, (nearly) reckless generalizations, and
downright hostility are passionate acts, for USENET. Take a chance and
express an idea. Dare to be caught out by someone who can prove you
wrong; but choose your words wisely and question your every assertion.
Hone the blade of your reason.
Then again, it's all just a slightly more noble form of "King of the
Mountain". A few weeks back, some of the ATTP gang and I ran Spratling
out of town on a rail, covered his homophobic ass in crude oil and downy
feathers. He express his mind, and he learned a hard lesson the hard
way. did this make him a better person? I don't know; but at least
that time there was something IMPORTANT at stake.
> > Diane is a dreamer, to her detriment. It's the story of nearly all
> > in Hollywood except the very few who found instant stardom; but it's an
> > idiot who plays a lottery where the odds are so poor. Diane had nothing
> > special to offer to directors and producers, but her aspirations and her
> > delusions told her to press forward, until her negative emotions
> > consumed her.
>
> So you don't feel that Diane could have been Betty, or at least like her?
Ebullience begins at birth, and ebbs ever after.
"And once you're gone...you can't go back;
When you're out of the blue, and into the black." - Neil Young
I want to propose a model, which asserts that a person's properties
such as intelligence, beauty, weight control - and Joy (positivity,
resilience, and natural anti-depression tendency) are each an AGGREGATE
of many genes working in tandem. The greater the number of less
effective copies, the farther one's development may fall from the
robust, proportionately healthiest possible body and mind. This needn't
involve all genes: I believe the genes one must document are those
responsible for encoding the hormonal, signalling of the developing
body. It might be possible to say a great deal about a person's health
by knowing the genes encoding the known hormones, their cellular and
nuclear receptors, and the enzymes responsible for the horomes' creation
and destruction. Any serious deviation from the best common versions
of those genes will make one more likely to be under- or alternately
developed.
Diane, without uncommonly good psychiatric treatment and medication,
was never going to approach Betty's outlook. Betty's outlook was as
healthy as a newborn babe in the golly-gosh-gee 1950's.
So, with your given genetic endowment, your body encounters stresses
and severe mental and physical traumas. The hormones associated with
trauma damage the hippocampus, and subsequent stresses continue
accelerating damage to our brain's serenity. Try as you might, wishing
you had a healthier brain can only enable a recovery over a long time,
if at all. Rape, abuse, war, post-traumatic stress disorder, and
smaller, personal tragedies will whittle away a person's Betty-nature.
> > Even better, this isn't just any kind of dream. When a Tibetan
> > Buddhist dies, he or she will dream for a period after death. At first
> > the dream is ideal, but it's composed of parts of the dreamer, and way
> > leads unto way until one's own character flaws erode the dream world.
> > Depending on your reaction to this personal horror, you may demonstrate
> > some degree of enlightenment, and get a favorable re-incarnation. Or
> > you could freak out in the sight of your personal horrors, and end up
> > re-incarnated as a bug.
> >
> > I think it's really cool to use a faith tradition as the unannounced,
> > unhinted at, hidden structure of MD and LH. I think it's a truly great
> > portrait of a woman, triangulated by her desires and disappointments.
>
> That's very interesting. If I believed in an afterlife, I'd definitely go
> with reincarnation.
> So do you think that Diane was dreaming all this after her death?
I feel strongly that the idea of Diane's death Bardo is a secret
structure of girders, supporting a story that would only lose majesty,
were the Buddhist angle referenced in the film. Diane doesn't need to
understand this framework to be analyzed by it. The ride she took on
Mulholland Dr. matches what I've read.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/tibetan-book-of-the-dead.htm
> This scripture (The Bardo Thotrol) from Tibetan Buddhism was
> traditionally read aloud to the dying to help them attain liberation. It
> guides a person to use the moment of death to recognize the nature
> of mind and attain liberation.
>
> It teaches that awareness once freed from the body, creates its own reality
> like that of a dream. This dream projection unfolds in predictable ways in
> ways both frightening and beautiful. Peaceful and wrathful visions appear,
> and these visions can be overwhelming. Since the awareness is still in
> shock of no longer being attached to and shielded by a body, it needs
> guidance and forewarning so that key decisions that
> lead to enlightenment are made. The Tibetan Book of the Dead
> teaches how one can attain heavenly realms by recognizing the enlightened
> realms as opposed to being drawn into the realms of seduction that pull
> incorporeal awareness into cyclic suffering.
-----------------
> On a side note: When I first saw MD in the theatre, I wasn't too sure if
> Naomi Watts was both Betty and Diane. She looked and acted SO different.
> When I saw it again, I was sure it was her playing both roles. (It has not
> much to do with what you said, but I just thought I'd share. :)
We were meant to wonder in those first moments - and yet there's only
one way to read the film and have it make sense, as it continues. And
then you really get the concept.
> > But I do know what happened to Betty. She was only real to express a
> > projection of Diane's persona. She was ridiculous, untenable, a
> > desperation. She could not continue for long, in light of what she
> > slowly remembered as her dream progressed.
>
> Why do you think she disappeared when she did?
On one level, the girls went to a theater and saw a show. They had
to go home, to the bedroom where Diane had dreamt of intimacy with
Camilla-as-Rita. The reckoning doesn't happen at the event, it happens
at home when everyone is supposed to go back to normal, but there are
issues they can't leave behind.
Diane was dreaming, her surrogate Betty dropped out prematurely,
before Rita and their reality swoosch! into the opened box. I think the
reason Betty went first has to do with her transition between two
different types of dreams. Maybe I'll understand when my Korean DVD
arrives.
Trichome
--
Scripts and other texts available on request: Grandmother, EM,
Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH; TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions,
movie references, symbols in TP, Log Lady intros, Laura's Secret Diary,
Cooper's autobiography, my more insightful posts in Google; On the Air,
LH, tSS, MD pilot... & etcetera, and etcetera.