By, the way I just want to reiterate here (I talked about this in another thread) that I am still considering the notion that the second half of the film is either a 'mirror' or a 'retelling' of the same story we see in the first part of the film. The second story is a shortened version of the first (Camilla mentions a 'shortcut'). If this is the case, then we could be seeing the same story, told twice, with two different styles.

vicster111 wrote:By, the way I just want to reiterate here (I talked about this in another thread) that I am still considering the notion that the second half of the film is either a 'mirror' or a 'retelling' of the same story we see in the first part of the film. The second story is a shortened version of the first (Camilla mentions a 'shortcut'). If this is the case, then we could be seeing the same story, told twice, with two different styles.

Ok, so ..... imagine this:

The ENTIRE point of this is that you are being told two stories that are the same. The point of Mulholland Dr is for you to take things that you have learned in one part and apply them to the second. Or upon contemplation apply whatever to whatever.

Have you ever tried to solve a jigsaw in the mirror?

Two dreams, both the same ....

When I first saw MD and subsequently hunted down a message board to talk further, I swayed between opinions. For a while I was CONVINCED that the most of the film was a death dream. TOTALLY CONVINCED. It all made sense that way. Then I looked a little deeper and realised that there were a few things that didn't quite fit with that explanation.

Hm



Then I understood/realised/gathered that believing in the standard/classical/whatever "explanation" for the film did the complete opposite of limiting you. In fact it frees you. Once you have a framework to consider things in, there are a million possibilities. Without the framework you spend too much time looking at the hole and not the doughnut.

When you're worrying about the point of Laney, maybe you miss where Laney fits in.

This is a strange and disjointed post. I guess my reason for posting this is to say keep your eyes wide open. Don't miss or dismiss things or bend them to fit with your view. Be objective.

Don't be a slave to a theory (not just you Vic, everyone).

Don't be a slave to a theory

You don't have to worry about me. Lol!

Since my 'Dan Selwyn' theory I've come up with about 4 more possibilities. I probably had 2 or 3 before the Dan theory. And, at the time, I was 90% sure I was 'right' with Dan.

I'm about as open-minded as you can get. And I love hearing ideas from others...especially when they open up a new way of looking at this film for me. It's very refreshing to me when someone sees a scene very differently than I had been seeing it. It keeps this film fun and all the more enjoyable.

So keep it coming y'all.