let me go further on something here. Just thought about this a different way. What if the need to fit things it into the larger framework is, in itself, a false goal. No. Not false. I mean... taken too far. Basically, if you bring up Carol to reinforce some other consistent motifs/images in the movie (self-confident talented brunette actress who has a rapport with Adam), then that would be enough to show how she fits.

But if you say "Carol is a main character of the movie, let me tell you the secret story of Carol," then I think people already know what I think about that. And I'm willing to bet Hulk would agree with me on that kind of thing, as well. (if Hulk's validation of stuff is still... well..... valid.)

kmkmiller wrote:let me go further on something here. Just thought about this a different way. What if the need to fit things it into the larger framework is, in itself, a false goal. No. Not false. I mean... taken too far. Basically, if you bring up Carol to reinforce some other consistent motifs/images in the movie (self-confident talented brunette actress who has a rapport with Adam), then that would be enough to show how she fits.

Yep

Which begs the question, "why are you here?", or "why am I here?", or "why is anyone here?". Which is a very meta-discussion, but one worth having, and a thread that I meant to post after something Kyle (I think) said in the TP Podcast thread.

If you're here to explore the film, then you can happily lose track of the "bigger picture" a bit whilst brainstorming and heading off down some garden path, think "that was fun", and then carry about your day. If you're here for closure and to solve the film then you will allow yourself less leeway in tying everything to some central premise. I'm definitely in the former category. I enjoy myself far more with a little less restraint to my thinking. There has to be SOME control with the ideas (basing them on what is shown in the film is a start) or else a pretty garden path turns into a wild goose chase. Where's the line? I don't know, precisely, but it's interesting watching people converse when they not only have different ideas about what's on screen, but different motivations for talking about it.

I'll post that thread when I have a bit of time.

well, the thing is we are dealing with a director who encourages both an open interpretation, but Lynch also encourages a "closed" interpretation. Basically he said that no one has ever figured out Eraserhead, which means there is something we're all still missing as Lynch fans.

This encourages us to keep looking, but it also dangles out before us a "closed" answer. It's the big questions of life. Journey or the destination?? And the journey is fun, but people would not be climbing mt. everest if there wasn't a peak, or if they did, it would be to prove there is a peak we just haven't found yet.

Exploration and Destinations are false choices. they are handmaidens to each other.

kmkmiller wrote:well, the thing is we are dealing with a director who encourages both an open interpretation, but Lynch also encourages a "closed" interpretation. Basically he said that no one has ever figured out Eraserhead, which means there is something we're all still missing as Lynch fans.

This encourages us to keep looking, but it also dangles out before us a "closed" answer. It's the big questions of life. Journey or the destination?? And the journey is fun, but people would not be climbing mt. everest if there wasn't a peak, or if they did, it would be to prove there is a peak we just haven't found yet.

Exploration and Destinations are false choices. they are handmaidens to each other.

Yes but each film is different, so just because David may consider there to be a closed (probably uniquely personal) answer to Eraserhead, it doesn't automatically follow for the rest of his films.

My understanding is that the journey to the peak of Everest is not actually much fun at all. Reaching the peak is the the point of the whole thing, and then you can go home and always remember that relief and satisfaction at beating the mountain. So that's a good analogy for those who are seeking to conquer MD then leave it behind maybe, but it is not the point to conquer, for me at least.

YMMV

If MD was a mountain then perhaps originally I set out to climb it, but along the way I found a series of intricate caves. Fascinating caves that lead on to one another, connected in the strangest beautiful ways. Some caves seem like dead ends, some ARE dead ends, but they're all beautiful to hang around in for a while. Somewhere along the way I probably stopped caring about finding my way out of them, and it would almost be a shame to accidentally stumble out onto the peak (in fact that's probably impossible now anyway), and instead I'm just enjoying being lost in them.

Hence, I suppose, Lost on Mulholland Drive ...

that's cool. i arrived at a destination that for me makes the most sense.

as for hanging out in caves, i don't mind, Plato says we're all in a cave anyway.

none of that really bugs me, per se.

peeve number 1 is people who have caves to explore but use a Socratic method of prompting others to explore that cave. I dislike being asked a question by people who already know, in their own minds, what the answer is. it wastes time and has only one purpose but to boost the ego of the cave "owner," while we all stumble over finding the answer they're looking for. if you'll note i might not always be right, but i'll tell you what I think pretty darn directly. (i think my run-in with Xav makes it pretty clear i don't have much patience for a certain kind of discourse).

peeve number 2 is extolling the incredibleness of an "expert" who gives a boring interpretation of the movie ignoring the fact that the "expert" has also provided an ANSWER in the definitive peakiness sense of the word and condescendingly chided those who hang out in caves and explore meaningless extrapolations.

Just saying cave dwelling is great. By all means, just say directly what you find in those caves, and lets not celebrate those who say cave dwelling is stupid.

Negativity is the enemy to creativity. So if you want more ideas flowing, happiness in the doing, happiness in the doing, happiness in the doing.

David Lynch

happiness in the doing when the doing is NOT leading questions from a guy named Xav trying to be teacher, when the fact is we are all equals and all i really want to know is what Xav thinks. NOT what Xav is trying to teach me like I'm a subordinate.

Don't know the difference, oh well. still a peeve of mine.

Do you recognize these reflections, Mr Miller? (btw please don't answer, for this is not a question). Please stop using my name, and discuss movies. That's why we are here for.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

be happy to talk about the movies when someone talks about them.

instead they post stupid questions about an escher like painting with a rubiks cube and a mirror.

i won't use your name anymore.

there's only two rocks.

Let's talk about movies. I just wanted to quote this here to keep Carol insights in one place:

woolfspersona wrote:Is it generally agreed on here though that some characters in any story can be symbols of another character without necessarily being that character? For example, I'm taking a herpetology class right now. Lissamphibians are often also called amphibians, and all amphibians are lissamphibians, but not all lissamphibians are amphibians. I feel like Camilla would be the lissamphibian and Carol the amphibian. "Don't you forget, I'm the girl that's playing this part" is probably a reference to Camilla's amnesia. Sorry, I haven't slept in two days studying for that herpetology lab exam and can't get it off my mind!

(Originally posted on this thread).

And with reference to The Sylvia North Story:

woolfspersona wrote:Looks like some really nice cinematography. I'd love to watch it. And the actress' name is Carroll, but she looks like blonde Camilla, and brunette Camilla is the girl who got to play Sylvia North. Strange, strange.

(Originally posted on this thread).

If you want more misc info, this is kind of tangential, but if Carol is a Camilla doppelgänger, then her line "don't forget about me" has some added pathos to it... It is a common sentiment but valid nonetheless, the dead do wish to not be forgotten. This I'm sure has already been implied elsewhere I just wanted to give it a full notation.... Dead Camilla/carol is telling the guy she loved not to forget about her.

She also says "you're so cruel to me..." Hmmmmm.

Yay, thanks for adding it!!

Siku wrote: And Diane HAS forgotten. She's forgotten that Carol is the girl that's playing the part of Camilla, Diane's fantasy lover. Diane is in the process of RECASTING the lead actress, and it's bugging Diane DAY and NIGHT.

Hmm, I definitely agree that Diane's mind would be reminding her that Carol IS the girl who really gets to play the part (and interestingly, in our world a girl named Carroll plays the Sylvia part for real). Good stuff =) But is Diane being bugged or is the director being bugged? Not necessarily Adam, because we're not so sure if he's really a director or if his name is really Adam, but whoever is really the director.

Bob wrote:

Siku wrote:So in place of one 'real' brunette , I'm seeing multiple images, seen through a cut diamond, Rita, Lamp Lady, Camilla, ..and Carol.

Let's not forget about Cynthia

Unless Cynthia is Diane.

Can Cynthia be Camilla AND Diane?

Siku,

I have to say that your view of Carol is interesting. As I mentioned elsewhere, since I've got this new approach to MD I came up with a same sort of idea exept...just the other way around!

You say: Carol + De Rosa= Camilla. Well, first of I'm of the opinion that De Rosa is a REAL character and that she's Diane's REAL lover (or rather: was her lover). Carol is a transitionmodel to...Camilla Rhodes! Here's how I see the equation:

Betty ---> Camilla Rhodes (Betty look-a-like in dream) ---> Carol (transition between blonde Betty look-a-like Camilla Rhodes and Camilla) ---> Camilla ---> Camilla Rhodes (blonde in daydream) ---> Camilla Rhodes (the real one with dark hair on the picture).

So...Camilla is a transition model from Rita to Camilla Rhodes! It is Camilla Rhodes who played the lead in "The Sylvia North Story," although we can be pretty sure that this title is also being made up by Diane (for the title refers to Aunt Ruth - who has gone north - and she doesn't exist outside Diane's head, because she is totally fictitious). I've got many more theories about Rita and Camilla, but this is the way I view Carol: a transition model from Rita to Camilla Rhodes.

I also see DeRosa as the REAL lover, and Brunette Camilla the souped-up fantasy version. To clarify, I'm suggesting here that Carol is a REAL film star and that the fantasy, Brunette Camilla, is an amalgam of REAL lover + REAL film star.

Glad you found it interesting erniesam and hope you enjoyed it, as that's what we're here for! It's just an experiment really, to see how many lines and connections can be draw to a given point.

Erniesam wrote:Betty ---> Camilla Rhodes (Betty look-a-like in dream) ---> Carol (transition between blonde Betty look-a-like Camilla Rhodes and Camilla) ---> Camilla ---> Camilla Rhodes (blonde in daydream) ---> Camilla Rhodes (the real one with dark hair on the picture).

Sorry, I don't quite follow.

Betty > Blonde Camilla (dream) > Carol > Brunette Camilla > Blonde Camilla (fantasy) > Brunette Camilla