4 Dreamers? (moved post)

blu
Original Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 343
Berny - I'm copying your post into a new thread as it seems a good point for starting to look at elements of this theory.

If we had somebody with moderator privileges, it would be better. But RT doesn't "do" user mods.

Berny Rabbit
I'm trying to lay the story out in bits to not be exhaustive. MD is a big story with lots of parts. Yes, that's right, I'm not looking at it as if the first part were something Diane dreamed and the second part represents "reality". That story has never appealed to me. It is not that one story or another can be proved by theories; it is just not interesting to me and there are many things that happen in the film, so I am trying to follow them as I see them.

As I see it the first part is dreamed by three people, who are all introduced during the credits. In order: Betty, blond Camilla, and Rita. We see the transformations of these people in the first three scenes. The reincarnation of Diane as Betty, the reincarnation of Camilla as Melissa George, and the resurrection of Camilla as someone who doesn't remember her name so calls herself Rita. Betty and Rita are walking in a continuous time line through scenes that are not continuous, as they try to discover what went wrong with their lives as Diane and Camilla.

The second part I see as a dream also, that of Diane. It seems to me that Diane's dream begins (not ends) when we see her waking up. For one thing, I have not been able to find a time line in that sequence that looks anything like reality and it doesn't look like anyone else has ever agreed about it either. It is filled with the same kinds of anomalies as the first part, indicating that it is ... if "dream" is not the right word, then at least an entirely subjective experience of Diane's ? dreamlike parts that don't cohere.

Same is true for the first part: When I say that Betty, blonde Camilla, and Rita "dreamed" the parts of the first part, I mean that their personal points of view controlled the scenes. E.g. Camilla (as the blonde) wants the SNS part so she dreams the Ryan scene, the Cowboy scene, and her Little Star audition. She makes the people in her dream do what she wants them to do, but then, they become characters in the story and so have a degree of free will.

That's the basic structure of the story that I see except that I see the whole story as taking place in Dan's dream, which he's seen twice. Dan has nothing to do with the story, he is only a vessel to hold it, which is necessary because it is a story that contains such fantastic things as reincarnating into the past that it needs the dream of an innoccent bystander to contain it. I haven't yet dealt with Dan and the bum yet though. For the most part, spiff06 and I have just been batting around ideas in a few already existing threads.
This seems to be a very complicated way of approaching MD.

However, I'm always game for some new ideas. ;)

So, to clarify, who do you believe is dreaming the first few scenes?

1. Jitterbug
2. Limo ride & crash
3. Crash scene
4. Dan & Herb in Winkie's
5. Phone call chain
6. Betty's arrival at LAX
Oct 9, 2006 12:41 PM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
[indent]
bluBerny - I'm copying your post into a new thread as it seems a good point for starting to look at elements of this theory.

If we had somebody with moderator privileges, it would be better. But RT doesn't "do" user mods.

This seems to be a very complicated way of approaching MD.

However, I'm always game for some new ideas. ;)

So, to clarify, who do you believe is dreaming the first few scenes?

1. Jitterbug
2. Limo ride & crash
3. Crash scene
4. Dan & Herb in Winkie's
5. Phone call chain
6. Betty's arrival at LAX

blu: Yes, I think it MD is a very big story. As i currently see the dreamers:

1. Betty is entering the film, so, her POV

2. Dan. Nobody dreams the party and the limo scene seems part of that view.

3. Dan.

4. Ourselves watching the film. If Dan and Herb are the first level of reality, then we would be the zeroth.

5. Rita ? Camilla in trouble without her memory.

6. Betty. This is the continuation of the Jitterbug scene.



[/indent]
Oct 9, 2006 6:33 PM
0 0
blu
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 343
[quote]blu: Yes, I think it MD is a very big story. As i currently see the dreamers:

1. Diane is being transformed into Betty so you could say the dreamer is either of them, but the Betty story hasn't really started yet, and it is fashioned from Diane's Jitterbug story from the party so it would make more sense to say Dan here as the overall dreamer. In other words, nobody in the story is controlling the scene.

btw, the fact that the old couple's faces fade into the next scene, Camilla reincarnating as Melissa George into the pillow, also indicates to me that Dan is present somewhere overall, seeing this scene too.[/quote]I?m still not really following you on this.

Camilla I (Harring) is reincarnating into Camilla II (George) as we go down into the pillow? So in your opinion it?s Camilla I going down into the pillow?[quote]2. Also seems to be Dan to me (at present) because the dreamers dream within Dan's dream and none of them is dreaming the party. The limo ride seems to be part of that same view.

3. Well it's part of the limo ride, so also Dan. After Diane shot herself, someone saw the fires and smoke of the accident out her window and then in back of the bum, so that could be nobody but Dan. [/quote]The reason that I separated scenes 2 and 3 is because we have the crash, and then Rita?s stumble down into LA of the hillside. Then Rita puts her head down and falls asleep?

Now we go back to the crash scene with Domgard and McKnight, and the 119 fire truck. It just seems to me that that Rita being shown falling to sleep immediately before the scene might indicate that this is her dream if we are to take any kind of clue at this point, coming from a dream-within-a-dream angle.

When you talk about somebody seeing fire and smoke from outside of Diane?s window, are you talking in a literal sense? If so, why would Diane?s suicide by gun be producing that kind of effect?[quote]These scenes during the credits seem to be a kind of overture which introduces the dreamers, but Dan only remembers the last part of his dream, which he tells to Herb. [/quote]I like your use of the term ?overture? here, because I like to think that Lynch is in someway using the language and grammar of music in the world of cinema. This is the reason that whilst MD could be considered quite wild structurally, the structure works, resonates, and seems expressive and eloquent.

For example, the final scenes following the suicide are difficult to resolve when thinking in a traditional cinema sense. Are we still in a dream, why is all that smoke coming out, what does it mean ? etc. But, if we think in terms of a different grammar ? the scenes are a perfect CODA to the previous 140mins. And this allows us to escape the need to interpret everything in a traditional manner.

Which is very helpful and liberating ? to me anyway. [quote]4. Nobody: Dan and Herb in Winkies is the only depiction of reality in the film. [/quote]Let me look at this point at the end.[quote]5. Rita ? scared of people after her and has vague memories of Roque and big power from her life as Camilla.

"Rita" comes into being when Camilla is killed in the crash and resurrected as someone who can't remember her name. So she dreams anything that might be related to her present condition as a fugitive from an unidentified threat and also to her former memories as Camilla (Adam and his wife, etc.) [/quote]I dig the idea that Rita is born in the crash. It fits with Gilda: ?I was born last night when you met me in that alleyway. That way I?m all future and no past?. But Gilda can?t escape her past and the person that she truly is.[quote]6. Betty. This is Betty's big Hollywood dream. It's as if Diane has been given a chance to start over and the idea is: "OK, this is what you said you wanted, here you are. Now make what you want of it." One can almost imagine Irene and her companion thinking something like this as they escort her out of her old life and into the new one. [/quote]So, let me clarify:

In Dan?s dream, Diane becomes Betty, and Betty dreams her Hollywood story. Later Betty becomes Diane again, and when Diane wakes up, that?s when her dream really begins?[quote]Anyway, yeah, as I see it, the 4 dreamers are Betty, blonde Camilla, Rita, and later, Diane. Dan is an innocent bystander, just someone who tells about a dream he doesn't understand and doesn't really remember except that because of it he is left with a "god awful feeling". He thinks it is all about the bum because that's what he remembers. That's my guess. The story has nothing to do with him except that he is David Lynch's story teller. [/quote]For me, looking at 99% of the film as one or more dreams, it loses the human element. Do we care whether or not Diane ordered a hit on Camilla? Why should we care about the destroyed dreams of a young hopeful in Hollywood? Why should we care about any of these lives?

Sit back and enjoy the imagery and music ? yeah.

But don?t get too involved cuz none of it is real.

I mean, from your POV, do Diane and Camilla even really exist or are they just figments of Dan?s imagination? If they exist ? what?s their story? Can it be put together from Dan?s dream?
Oct 10, 2006 3:32 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3
But none of it is real.

It is a film.

It is all a recording.

It is a tape.

All an illusion.
Oct 10, 2006 5:30 AM
0 0
blu
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 343
akin-2-grieveBut none of it is real.

It is a film.

It is all a recording.

It is a tape.

All an illusion.
A wise man once said that "cinema is truth, 24 times per second".

Personally, I'm closer to that belief.

Yes maybe Lynch is commenting on Hollywood, and the nature of the industry, and it's stars ... yada yada yada ... with the scene you reference, but we haven't quite made it that far yet, so let's stick to the task.
Oct 10, 2006 8:35 AM
0 0
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3
bluA wise man once said that "cinema is truth, 24 times per second".

Personally, I'm closer to that belief.

Yes maybe Lynch is commenting on Hollywood, and the nature of the industry, and it's stars ... yada yada yada ... with the scene you reference, but we haven't quite made it that far yet, so let's stick to the task.

Hi there,

Sorry, I didn't mean by that Lynch is making a statement about Hollywood etc, rather the point is - if the whole film IS Dan's dream, and I'm not saying it is, is it any less viable or powerful than if Dan wasn't there? Because if it IS Dan's dream, it is still part of the film, which is truth, 24 frames a second.
Oct 10, 2006 9:15 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
[indent]
bluI?m still not really following you on this.

Camilla I (Harring) is reincarnating into Camilla II (George) as we go down into the pillow? So in your opinion it?s Camilla I going down into the pillow?

Yes. There are two main directions we can go when we enter the film. If we see that as Diane we see one story, if we see it as Camilla we see a different one. I am more interested in the second one.

[QUOTE]The reason that I separated scenes 2 and 3 is because we have the crash, and then Rita?s stumble down into LA of the hillside. Then Rita puts her head down and falls asleep?

Now we go back to the crash scene with Domgard and McKnight, and the 119 fire truck. It just seems to me that that Rita being shown falling to sleep immediately before the scene might indicate that this is her dream if we are to take any kind of clue at this point, coming from a dream-within-a-dream angle.[/QUOTE]
Walking down the hill, watching Ruth with the suitcases, hiding under the table and sleeping, the two detectives, the phone chain starting from Roque: all that looks to me like a view of the universe as Rita sees it.

[QUOTE]When you talk about somebody seeing fire and smoke from outside of Diane?s window, are you talking in a literal sense? If so, why would Diane?s suicide by gun be producing that kind of effect?[/QUOTE]
It looks like the theme of the accident is starting to emerge because, if the movie were shown as a loop, a little later we see the accident itself.

[QUOTE]I like your use of the term ?overture? here, because I like to think that Lynch is in someway using the language and grammar of music in the world of cinema. This is the reason that whilst MD could be considered quite wild structurally, the structure works, resonates, and seems expressive and eloquent.

For example, the final scenes following the suicide are difficult to resolve when thinking in a traditional cinema sense. Are we still in a dream, why is all that smoke coming out, what does it mean ? etc. But, if we think in terms of a different grammar ? the scenes are a perfect CODA to the previous 140mins. And this allows us to escape the need to interpret everything in a traditional manner.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's what I meant above ? the fire has nothing to do with Diane's gun. Among all the other awards this film should eventually receive, the most structured film to date might be one of them.

[QUOTE]Which is very helpful and liberating ? to me anyway. Let me look at this point at the end.I dig the idea that Rita is born in the crash. It fits with Gilda: ?I was born last night when you met me in that alleyway. That way I?m all future and no past?. But Gilda can?t escape her past and the person that she truly is.[/font][/color]So, let me clarify:

In Dan?s dream, Diane becomes Betty, and Betty dreams her HollywoodFor me, looking at 99% of the film as one or more dreams, it loses the human element. Do we care whether or not Diane ordered a hit on Camilla? Why should we care about the destroyed dreams of a young hopeful in Hollywood? Why should we care about any of these lives?

Sit back and enjoy the imagery and music ? yeah.

But don?t get too involved cuz none of it is real.

I mean, from your POV, do Diane and Camilla even really exist or are they just figments of Dan?s imagination? If they exist ? what?s their story? Can it be put together from Dan?s dream? [/QUOTE]
I agree that they don't exist. But that is because they are only in our imagination. We see their story; it is just that it can't be flattened out and talked about as if it were a traditional Film Noir where an unscrambled story gets scrambled for us to piece together. Barry Gifford said that he and David Lynch agreed that walking into a movie should be like walking into a dream. Why then would we want to undo the marvel of that?

The miracle of it is that, even though it is fiction, we do care! When we look into Diane's soul at the party as she twitches her mouth around unaware of how she looks, saying "... but Camilla got the part." ? does it make you care about her any less to realize that it was Naomi Watts' story telling skill that brought that to us? I think it is exactly the fact that we are shown that we are watching an illusion that brings it to life. If a stage magician cuts a rabbit in half and then we see it whole and alive again, it is the fact that we know it can't happen that makes it worthy to be seen. If he did it with a plant, it would just be a documentary on plant grafting. No illusion, no magic.

After Hamlet saw the play about the ancient story of Hecuba, he's talking to himself and trying to figure out how the actor was able to make him care so much about a fictional character and express it better than he can express the real turmoil in his own real life. (Which, by the way, is not real either, is it?) I'm sure it's about more than that because people have talked about it for a long time, but that's the part of it I'm noticing here.

"For Hecuba!
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her?"

It is exactly noticing the truth of the illusion of story telling that opens the story. Because when Diane says, "... but Camilla got the part.", she is repeating what we just saw, because we just saw Naomi Watts watch Camilla get the part. Otherwise we are denying ourselves the story by fooling ourselves. The point is that the viewer is made part of the film in that way, part of the meaning of the film and everything that happens in it, including Camilla getting the part (from her own POV).

[/indent]
Oct 10, 2006 1:40 PM
0 0
blu
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 343
BernyI agree that they don't exist. But that is because they are only in our imagination. We see their story; it is just that it can't be flattened out and talked about as if it were a traditional Film Noir where an unscrambled story gets scrambled for us to piece together. Barry Gifford said that he and David Lynch agreed that walking into a movie should be like walking into a dream. Why then would we want to undo the marvel of that?
I think you misunderstood me.

To me MD is largely about the human condition. It is about the comparison between a person?s true existence and their dreams (in all senses of the word). It is about how one person deals with their dreams being hopelessly crushed, set against the backdrop of likely past traumas, confused sexual identity, possible mental illness and potential mind conditioning exercises. ;)

And it plays out in that which can be one of the cruellest environments ? the place that kills many more dreams than it creates and fulfils ? Hollywood.

Now, to me, take that human element out of the story (by interpreting the whole thing as a dream ? save one scene), and it just does become a stream of abstract imagery and dream (il)logic. It?s difficult to drag the humanity out of it, it?s more difficult to piece together a story in the real world that informs these dreams, and I lose compassion for Diane?s tragedy. Who am I supposed to be affected and moved by? Who am I rooting for?

I know that there are films that are more along these lines, but I don?t figure MD to be one of them.

Chiefly, Davey is a storyteller.

For me he?s telling Diane?s story.

And Diane DOES exist.
Oct 11, 2006 3:10 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
[indent]
bluI think you misunderstood me.

To me MD is largely about the human condition. It is about the comparison between a person?s true existence and their dreams (in all senses of the word). It is about how one person deals with their dreams being hopelessly crushed, set against the backdrop of likely past traumas, confused sexual identity, possible mental illness and potential mind conditioning exercises. ;)

And it plays out in that which can be one of the cruellest environments ? the place that kills many more dreams than it creates and fulfils ? Hollywood.

Now, to me, take that human element out of the story (by interpreting the whole thing as a dream ? save one scene), and it just does become a stream of abstract imagery and dream (il)logic. It?s difficult to drag the humanity out of it, it?s more difficult to piece together a story in the real world that informs these dreams, and I lose compassion for Diane?s tragedy. Who am I supposed to be affected and moved by? Who am I rooting for?

No, I agree with what you say is the theme of the story. But I don't see why it disappears for you if the events of the story are noticed. I've seen this objection before so much of what leaves me wondering is not particularly why it ruins the film for you, but for anyone. There are many very extraordinary things that happen in the film and the fact that such a film could even exist, when none that I know of ever did before, is for me one of the most wonderful things about it. If we look at all the possibilities of loops between one version of reality and another, the structures that render impossible the timelines that we have agreed to pretend that we did not notice in previous cinematic conventions, implied invisible stories within the film, etc., then the themes of love and craving and betrayal and forgiveness are still there for me, along with others. These structures form the context in which that human condition is seen, a context that constantly shifts between one layer of reality and another, not as a side show but as the means by which the film includes the experience of the viewer. They are so extraordinary that I want to comprehend them enough to be able to say what they are, just to be able to say what happens in the film. That is what I am trying to do.

I have always thought that the only other work I know of personally that is like it is Velazquez' Las Meninas. Yes, it is about how the entire gloomy future of late 17th Century Europe is being placed on the shoulders of this fairylike little girl, but to notice only that and ignore the fact that we appear to be looking at something we could not possibly be seeing is to miss a great deal that is there.


[indent] [QUOTE] I know that there are films that are more along these lines, but I don?t figure MD to be one of them.[/QUOTE] [/indent] I have never even heard of another film like it, so you must think that I see it as something other than what I do. I can't imagine what you mean by "other films that are more along these lines".
[indent][QUOTE]Chiefly, Davey is a storyteller.

For me he?s telling Diane?s story.

And Diane DOES exist. [/QUOTE] [/indent] I agree with you there!
[/indent]
Oct 11, 2006 8:38 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Berny RabbitSame is true for the first part: When I say that Betty, blonde Camilla, and Rita "dreamed" the parts of the first part, I mean that their personal points of view controlled the scenes. E.g. Camilla (as the blonde) wants the SNS part so she dreams the Ryan scene, the Cowboy scene, and her Little Star audition. She makes the people in her dream do what she wants them to do, but then, they become characters in the story and so have a degree of free will.
An egregor of sorts. A construction made with many hands, that earns a life of its own. Ok. So we never see the dreamers in the movie, only their projections; as blu mentioned, it's sort of hard making a human story of it for me, since everything becomes a fantasy in a way, but who knows? You're making Dan a silent watcher for the whole show, like a scribe that records what he sees without taking part.

If Dan and Herb's scene at Winkie's is the only real one, then are we to assume the creature is real as well?

Interesting to see you're considering the old couple as ferryfolk (leading souls across the river), but I don't see why Lynch would have included two Charons instead of being happy with just one.

Berny RabbitI have always thought that the only other work I know of personally that is like it is Velazquez' Las Meninas.
Impressive painting.

bluI dig the idea that Rita is born in the crash. It fits with Gilda: ?I was born last night when you met me in that alleyway. That way I?m all future and no past?.
Whoa. I gotta watch it.

bluTo me MD is largely about the human condition. It is about the comparison between a person?s true existence and their dreams (in all senses of the word). It is about how one person deals with their dreams being hopelessly crushed, set against the backdrop of likely past traumas, confused sexual identity, possible mental illness and potential mind conditioning exercises.
Absolutely. Thankfully, it's not usually as hard to reconcile as in Diane's case, but it's striking to see how close the dreamworld Lynch paints is to the mood and patterns of common dreams, in the way they unfold and construct themselves.
Oct 14, 2006 3:11 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Berny RabbitThis gorgeously constructed symmetry which is disrupted by Diane's bad faith and Joe's incompetence is in the film, and it results in a dead body being found whose identity is a mystery even though she is one of the four women.
bluFor me [Lynch]'s telling Diane?s story.
You know, I watched it again two nights ago, with the point of view that it was Camilla's perspective. I was surprised to see how well it fit.
Oct 14, 2006 3:13 AM
0 0
blu
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 343
Berny

When I refer to "other films along these lines", I mean films that are commonly interpreted to be one long dream/vision, or almost entirely made up from multiple dreams. For me, it is precisely the interaction between (Diane's) dream and reality that gives Mulholland Dr. much of its potency.

The lines are blurred - no doubt - but if I consider them to blur to such point as to be intelligible or completely absent, I lose a large part of my fascination with the film, its story and its structure.

I hope you can understand me, because I think that this is chiefly the reason why you will come across such counter-arguments to your own interpretations.

And it's always important to understand the enemy. ;)
Oct 16, 2006 4:40 PM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
[indent]
bluBerny

When I refer to "other films along these lines", I mean films that are commonly interpreted to be one long dream/vision, or almost entirely made up from multiple dreams. For me, it is precisely the interaction between (Diane's) dream and reality that gives Mulholland Dr. much of its potency.

The lines are blurred - no doubt - but if I consider them to blur to such point as to be intelligible or completely absent, I lose a large part of my fascination with the film, its story and its structure.

I hope you can understand me, because I think that this is chiefly the reason why you will come across such counter-arguments to your own interpretations.

Blu: I think what we have here is a case of the fox and the crow. I can no more see the fascination with seeing the film as 'Dianes' dream vs reality', than you can see my fascination for seeing it otherwise. The film is made so that it can be seen several ways and that is what is happening.

My purpose here is not to convince anyone to see it as I do for their own good etc., but the hope of finding help in solving a few remaining pieces in my own understanding of the film. For that to happen, someone will have to consider what I am seeing, whether it works for them or not, in order for me to ask my questions. It does no good to ask about a part of the film and have someone answer that it doesn't matter because it didn't happen. Then I come back and say none of it happened, it was only a movie. And they don't see why I am saying that etc. So that goes nowhere.

I'm working on a post that goes into this deeper, as soon as I can figure out how to post images. Plus more answers.

[QUOTE]And it's always important to understand the enemy. ;)[/QUOTE] Hey! You outnumber us by maybe a million to one ? we owe you some thanks for paying for the film we would never have seen otherwise!
[/indent]
Oct 16, 2006 6:02 PM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
spiff06An egregor of sorts. A construction made with many hands, that earns a life of its own. Ok. So we never see the dreamers in the movie, only their projections; as blu mentioned, it's sort of hard making a human story of it for me, since everything becomes a fantasy in a way, but who knows? You're making Dan a silent watcher for the whole show, like a scribe that records what he sees without taking part.
When Betty and Rita discuss the money and the key, they do become real. Koko the Clown may have once been only a spot of ink that was spilled while Fleischer dreamed, but he and his friends take on a life of their own and a real story takes place. That's how any fictional character comes into being. In the Diane's apartment sequence, as impossible as it is to focus on what is seen as anything representing reality because of its intense fragmentation, Diane becomes real through the power of David Lynch and Naomi Watts.

[QUOTE] If Dan and Herb's scene at Winkie's is the only real one, then are we to assume the creature is real as well?[/QUOTE] I see the creature in that scene as real, yes. We see it peek out from the wall after Dan has died, so we know he didn't dream it. The later views, holding the blue box and seen through the wall, seem to be parts of what he dreamed. And by the way, something I've always been curious about ? so I wonder if you or anyone notices this too: Those views of the bum in the last part do not seem to be the same face to me. Do they to anyone else? They look more like the "man" that Dan described. Or is that just my funky little TV?

[QUOTE]Interesting to see you're considering the old couple as ferryfolk (leading souls across the river), but I don't see why Lynch would have included two Charons instead of being happy with just one.[/QUOTE]I don't know, but I'm just noticing that they chase Diane out of and help Betty into the movie. Many other things people have said about them could also be true ? that they represent the world Diane feels she has disappointed by failing to be worthy of living, etc.

There was a thread at IMDb (not there now I guess) by someone who saw the entire film as Camilla's dream, and which was completely coherent. One of the fascinating things the poster noticed was that Diane had roots and Camilla did not. Diane had manners based on expectations that were taught to her growing up. Camilla had no scruples, no background, no family, no place to live, etc. From this perspective, these old folks represent Diane's roots, good or bad.

[QUOTE] Impressive painting.

Whoa. I gotta watch it.
[/QUOTE] There is another one Velazquez did at that time, equally encompassing of a vast range of thought, called The Fable of Arachne. I've read a number of books on Spanish art, but I've never seen any one book catch all of what the painting is about, only parts in one book or another.
Oct 16, 2006 9:54 PM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 249
[indent]
spiff06You're making Dan a silent watcher for the whole show, like a scribe that records what he sees without taking part.

I forgot this in my first response. What I mean is that Dan has nothing to do with the Diane and Camilla story, but I think he has an effect on what we see. The fragmentation we have been seeing could be coming from him.

Though I've been going with the idea that his two dreams having been just the same means that he's seen the story happen twice because it loops around, I'm now starting to think that it could also mean that the two dreams he is talking about are the story of Betty and that of Diane, given all their parallels, and that when he says with a little smirk "But they're just the same," he (and Lynch) are telling us that Betty and Diane are the same person. When he says, "I just wanted to come here." (grin), echoing Diane's "I always wanted to come here.", Lynch may be teasing us about the fact that both Betty and Diane always wanted to come here, so they are the same. But, as Dan, it might be that before he said that, in a scene we didn't see, Herb had said something like, "So what's this about, Dan? You haven't touched a bite!"
[/indent]
Oct 17, 2006 8:05 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Berny RabbitI see the creature in [Dan and Herb's] scene as real, yes. The later views, holding the blue box and seen through the wall, seem to be parts of what he dreamed. And by the way, something I've always been curious about ? so I wonder if you or anyone notices this too: Those views of the bum in the last part do not seem to be the same face to me. Do they to anyone else? They look more like the "man" that Dan described. Or is that just my funky little TV?
Absolutely. First we have a character that looks like its face has been burnt up, or more likely distorted by acid (which had me thinking along the lines of vitriol in the blue box originally, then of the creature being some kind of chemist); it looks rather foolish, as though lost and at irony over its own fate. Then it turns into a darker figure, more shining than before, and far more despondent and severe. Although it is veiled behind a curtain, it has the same severity at the end, and as I've mentioned before, looks like a character from Dante.

I think this reflects Diane's state of mind as she approaches her suicide. As part of a history research once, I read a book by an army general who wrote that through experience, he could tell, on the face of some of his troops, if a man was without doubt due for some bad luck; he took the habit of excluding those who presented these signs from taking part in operations to prevent endangering his platoon. I have once met a woman who became suicidal; I was one of the very last ones to meet her, about a half hour before she committed it; she had what I would call a black shadow barring her eyes that was very striking and unusual, to me at least. Other than an obvious cinematographic depiction of a person's fall into oblivion, it's possible Lynch may also have drawn on this kind of experience to make the creature evolve during the length of the movie, from despondency to hard resolve.

Berny RabbitI'm just noticing that [the old couple] chase Diane out of and help Betty into the movie.
Good point.

Berny RabbitThere was a thread at IMDb (not there now I guess) by someone who saw the entire film as Camilla's dream, and which was completely coherent.
I confirm that! Before I embarked on the determinism lead, I viewed it with that point of view in mind, and everything seemed to fit into place.

Berny RabbitI'm the only one who talked to this person, though I saw the view as limited as seeing it all as Diane's dream.
Yet a collection of limited views, amounting to a grand total of 24 theories and two other dozen subleads, makes for something rather limitless, doesn't it?

Berny RabbitBut one of the fascinating things the poster noticed was that Diane had roots and Camilla did not.
Good point. Links back to Sheridan Le Fanu also, in a way.
Oct 17, 2006 8:47 AM
0 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 231
Berny RabbitThe fragmentation we have been seeing throughout the movie comes from him. We have our choice of reasons: it is a dream and also he is psychotic. He is portrayed with seemingly inappropriate affect (though this is used by both Lynch and Fishler to play with the audience*) and loose associations. Nothing Dan says makes a lick of sense. He also has what has been called an omniscient system ? an assumption that everyone else knows what he's thinking. E.g. "He's the one who's doing it." Doing what, we wonder. It might make sense if he and Herb had talked before abut what "it" is, but in the context of what we see, he just seems to be assuming that Herb knows what "it" is, when he hasn't said.
Yet he would make perfect sense in your approach, would he not? If he is psychotic (or psychic?) "There's a man in back of displace." Meaning the creature would be behind the identity switches, the misplaced objects, we see happening throughout the two stories. Dan makes sense to me intuitively, his object reality is just different, so he speaks a different language, that needs decoding. I don't know if that helps...

By the way, if one of the veterans could point us to a thread dealing specifically with misspoken/grammatically incorrect/double meaning sentences throughout the movie, I'm interested. Otherwise, we need to start one. There's just too many language oddities to pay no interest to them... (I saw the one on the Coke line on md.com)

Berny Rabbit*Though I've been going with the idea that his two dreams having been just the same means that he's seen the story happen twice because it loops around, I'm now starting to think that it could also mean that the two dreams he is talking about are the story of Betty and that of Diane, given all their parallels, and that when he says with a little smirk "But they're just the same," he (and Lynch) are telling us that Betty and Diane are the same person. Then when he says, "That's it.", he doesn't necessarily mean that is all there is to the dream; only that is all he is going to say about it.
Well, we don't know how far back he and Herb go. It's the same kind of riddle as trying to figure out how far back Rita/Diane and Betty/Camilla go. Certainly if Dan feels comfortable confiding in Herb about his dreams, which is rather personal.
Oct 17, 2006 9:03 AM
0 0