This is REAL these are our LIVES.blu wrote:Could you imagine being one of those girls in Hollywood, spat out into a diner, a brothel, a porn studio ... wherever, and seeing MD and just thinking "Jesus Fucking Christ, that's my life"?
kmkmiller wrote:I still don't know why she says "you're so cruel to me" to Adam. That is very loaded language, and I'm sure it means something. It would be more applicable if Carol was a Diane fractal cause every one is always so cruel to Diane (as far as her own mind is concerned).
He says "home" three times.
kmkmiller wrote:Basically, yeah, in the Shaw-verse Nikki could be she-Adam, Cynthia could be a brunette fractal. but in the dying dream, tibetan book of dead-verse, the importance of Cynthia and Nikki is how Satanish they look, almost humorously so. Any chance Lynch even referenced the Adam Sandler movie Little Nicky that came out a year prior to MULHOLLAND DRIVE? if the tibetan book of the dead interpretation has any merit, I wouldn't put it past him.
Camilla wrote:I read somewhere that Carol is the most "normal" acting person during the first/dream half of the film, the words she uses, her mannerisms and the way she interacts with Adam are very different from how anyone else acts - don't know where I'm going with this so I'll just leave it at that. Food for thought.
"But the important thing in making a case with semiotics is that collective context is the most critical thing to use. It requires that the deduction both makes sense based on all the evidence, and thus fits into the context of everything else presented. It this last part that ritually drives Hulk nuts when people start interpreting art. Heck, there's 90 million lost theories out there that are based on one detail and go on for pages and pages without ever fitting in a larger context outside the argument (Lost "guru" Doc Jensen was particularly horrible at this). One must always be careful not to jump off the handle into meaningless extrapolation. One must constantly ask "How does this all piece together?"
As to tiny details vs semiotics, are you kidding? You quote Hulk's moan but this thread is exactly that - an attempt to knit Carol into the framework or signs around her.
This is a syntactic project and is definitely a semiotic approach, if we must use posh words.
I think the risk Hulk is pointing to is that we allow extrapolations from observations of this tiny detail to run rough shod over the gestalt of all the other observations of all the other tiny details.
We don't do that... do we?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users