Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mulholland Drive (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 02:16, 21 May 2008.

Mulholland Drive (film)

[edit]

There is no featured article candidate, yet you may see a featured article candidate... Sometimes (most of the time?) the benefit of Wikipedia is to the writer instead of the reader. I was unable to avoid the pull of rewriting this article when I became completely obsessed with the film after seeing it in late March. Much deliberation has gone into the article's contents. If you have not seen it, no doubt you will find the article confusing as it is a David Lynch film and his works are invariably bizarre. But I, and other editors, have done our best to diminish the confusion as much as possible. If you have seen it, you may still be confused or wish to see one particular interpretation of the film dominate the article. It deliberately questions any theory of what transpires (although you can find what really happens on my user page). I will do what needs to be done to see it featured. Thank you for reading it. Self-nomination, freakishly obsessed major contributor. Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, the sixth word I read got me rushing to add an FAC comment: this film is a mystery film?! Our own article defines it as "a sub-genre of the more general category of crime film. It focuses on the efforts of the Detective, private investigator or amateur sleuth to solve the mysterious circumstances of a crime by means of clues, investigation, and clever deduction." Er, how exactly is any of this central to Mulholland Dr.? The term "mystery film" and its definition seems to evoke images of a whodunnit rather than this movie. Are you sure you don't mean the more general suspense film? Anyway,that's my two cents, on to reading the rest of the article. indopug (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, suspense film redirects to thriller; something else then... indopug (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, therein lies the basis for multiple categorizations. Betty and Rita are amateur sleuths working to discover Rita's identity and find a dead body. But it unravels after that. For the sake of simplicity, so readers' heads don't explode in the first paragraph, mystery, film noir, and surreal are all apt and interchangable descriptions. Grammar, sentence structure, and the limits of English to describe what transpires should be taken into account. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no reason to suspect they are fansite reviews or otherwise suspicious since both have author names, and both are very high quality reviews: well-written, factually accurate, and somewhat neutral. I got the impression that writers sell their reviews to several outlets - the citation I had such a hard time hunting down from LesbiaNation/New York Times Syndicate did that and I found him on SciFi weekly.com, I think. I used the reviews to cite comments on the DVD and one issue with sound, since both reviews went into detail about the sound quality on large AV systems. If you're going to strike an oppose (heh) I'll try to find other sources, but I'm ok with these for what they're being used for. As for the magazine, are you asking that the name be changed from New York to New York Magazine? --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the first two up for other reviewers to decide for themselves. As for the third bit, I'm not sure, since I'm not sure if this is the magazine that's being cited or the website for the magazine. At first, when I read the ref, I though it was the city of new york that was the publisher, since it just says New York in the reference. I think adding "magazine" or "magazine website" would help clarify my admititly faulty initial reading (grins). More looking for clafication of the exact nature of the publisher to be made explicit. I don't have concerns over the reliablity of the site, just want to make sure the ref is not unclear. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed New York to New York (magazine). --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I'm done here! Good luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support Very well-written and sourced! Some minor fixes are needed but you haven't far to go.
    • In the last sentence of the lead, you mention The Elephant Man as one of Lynch's finest works but you don't mention it again or provide a citation. If anything, you should mention Eraserhead since your Village Voice source does (Critical reception heading).
    • The Plot heading is great, but the first sentence "The story may not be linear and exhibits several instances of temporal disorder." goes a little bit into "interpretation" which is original research without a source. I like the sentence, but can you source it to something?
    • I just don't know about Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg. True, you are showing something that you directly describe in the Plot section, but you really need critical commentary to make a strong fair use case. Since you don't actually critically analyze that scene anywhere, I suggest taking that image out.
    • "Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring were cast by their photographs, a practice characteristic of Lynch." This reads like their photographs cast them rather than Lynch. Suggest: "Lynch cast Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring b their photographs, a characteristic practice of his."
    • "They objected to the nonlinear storyline, the ages of Harring and Watts, whom they considered too old, that Ann Miller's character smoked, and a close-frame shot of dog feces in one scene." Rough sentence... can you reword and make more parallel?
    • Something bothers me about the "A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood'" heading. Maybe it's that it's not really parallel to the next subheading. Or maybe it's because I never come up with clever headings.
    • "The soundtrack of Mulholland Drive was supervised by Angelo Badalamenti, who collaborated with Lynch on his previous projects Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks." That's not all.. Badalamenti was involved with Lost Highway and others. Maybe say "... including Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks" if you aren't going to list them all.
    • I really don't care for the tables in the Awards heading. Are those WikiProject styles? There is not enough space between them and they have different heading sizes, column widths, etc. Not a good visual. --Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eraserhead changed.
      • The first line of the plot, I hope can be supported by the sourced comment in the lead that states it is an "offense against narrative order", the entire first part of the Interpretations section, and the Style section that discusses Lynch's use of deception and surreality. I, who take a vastly different interpretation from the majority of what has been written about the film, do not consider stating the story is nonlinear to be interpretive. I would like that sentence to stay, and I think the rest of the article supports it.
      • I like the image. I want to keep it, so if I have to add material I will. Let me work on that.
      • Lynch casting by photographs changed.
      • Undoubtedly A 'poisonous valentine to Hollywood' appeared and was so perfect it begged me to use it as a subheading. Begged me!
      • Will rewrite the odd unparallel sentence. Did that. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Angelo Badalamenti changed.
      • I stole, rather shamelessly, the table from Pulp Fiction. I admit I'm rather helpless with tables and images. Any assistance anyone can provide would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, given the shortness of my comments:
    • "The story may not be linear and exhibits several instances of temporal disorder." This abrupt beginning to a section leaves me with a slight feeling of temporal disorder as well; could this be fleshed out into another sentence or two, or perhaps moved to the end of the section as a conclusion paragraph?
    • I notice some overlinking; Ann Miller and feature film off the top of my head. These are so close to the lead that it doesn't really make sense to link them again. Another (though hardly surprising) is Mulholland Drive; please check throughout.
    • "When I saw it the first time. I thought it was the story of Hollywood dreams, illusion and obsession." Shouldn't there be a comma instead of a period after "time"?
    • "Lynch moves between scenes in the first portion of the film using panoramic shots of the mountains, palm trees, and buildings in Los Angeles, whereas in the darker part of the film, sound transitions to the next scene without a visual reference where it is taking place: at Camilla's party, when Diane is most humiliated, the sound of crashing dishes is heard that carries immediately to the scene where dishes have been dropped in the diner, and Diane is speaking with the hit man." Extremely long sentence that should definitely be split. I also see some grammatical issues with it.
    • "del Rio, who popularized the Spanish version" Even though "del" is not a proper noun, shouldn't it be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence? --Kakofonous (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes for points 2, 3, and 4. For the first, I want the sentence to stay at the beginning, because it prepares the reader for the confusion in the plot. However, expanding it may go into interpretation. It's generic enough to state that it jumps around in time, without pointing out where and what it means. For the last point, I... don't know. I think it's fine to stay lowercase, but it is not stated in the MOS about Spanish names. If anyone can answer this, I'd appreciate it. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All words at the beginning of sentences are to be capitalized. I've seen this issue before a few times, and I've made the correction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I know. Thanks, Erik. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is a 2001 mystery film written and directed by David Lynch that exhibits elements of film noir and the surreal. - 'elements' has a noun and an adjective. It would be nice to have either two nouns or two adjectives but i can't for the life of me think of alternative words, so I don't think this is solvable nor is it a deal-breaker really...

strongly acclaimed.. - ? Sounds an odd combo to me - I'd say 'highly acclaimed'
The last sentence in the lead is sorta just sticking out there and should be placed in a paragraph and the ref formatted properly.
temporal disorder. - odd phrase, why not just 'disturbed time sequence'? I work in psych and it sounds like a DSM IV diagnosis :)

Harring considered it ominous - 'ominous' to me means 'threatening' rather than pertaining to an omen as such - might need another word or phrase.

::He also exhibits Betty as extraordinarily talented.. - 'portrays' I feel is a better verb, or 'depicts' if you like.

abilities go noticed - umm, huh? Should this be go unnoticed?

Gotta run. More later Apart from these few bits above, the prose is a fine read and there is alot of extra material highlighting plot structure and interpretation of a Lynch film. I was musing on whether there was more to say about the idea that each of the two sequences can be seen as a dream of the other but that has been explored well so all good. Well done. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sentence in lead moved, strongly changed to highly, disorder changed to disruption (though I liked it as temporal disorder), ominous changed to fateful, exhibits changed to portrayed, and go changed to are. Thank you very much for reading and commenting on it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: criterion three concerns:
    • Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg - I share Laser Brain's concerns; prose seems perfectly adequate to convey that a name was gleaned from a poster (WP:NFCC#1). It is indeed a "nice" image, artistically speaking, but that is not sufficient for inclusion. There may be a place for it in the "style" section if the film's/Lynch's composition (cinematography) can be critically discussed, but I don't see any significant contribution (NFCC#8) as the article currently stands.
    • Image:BettyMulholland.jpg is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).
    • Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg - in additional to prose being perfectly adequate to describe the effect (dwarf with large prosthetics), the styling applied to a "minor character" with "only two lines" does not seem significant enough to the film itself or our understanding to warrant a fair use image. The subject of the image, additionally, is too small a part of the frame to adequate fulfill the intended role (i.e. style being discussed is quite hard to discern in this image). As hinted before, the "Rita Poster" image may be a good "replacement" in this section if adequate supporting prose can be provided. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images were in the article before I came to it. What would satisfy NFCC#8 for Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg? Moved Image:Rita Poster Mulholland.jpg to Characters, and dropped another to the Style section. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what I can do with Image:BettyMulholland.jpg. Low resolution now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you about the inclusion of Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg. It rarely matters how many lines characters have in Lynch films. Many of them are put there for surrealist affect, which is just why Michael J. Anderson was in this film and why his photo illustrates the Style section. Lynch's films often include moments where the viewer is faced with something on the screen that really makes no sense and is absurdly out of place. I can see if a better shot is available of him, but his depiction was a super close shot of his mouth, his chest and face in the chair, or all the way across the room like what is seen in the image now. --Moni3 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this fantastic article about a surreal film. I raised most of my issues on the talk page, so there is nothing major here. A lot of film articles on Wikipedia very much need critical analysis, and I think that this article sets the bar very well. Perhaps two minor issues to point out that don't really detract from my support: 1) There is one subsection under the Style section. Is it possible to have two subsections or have the Soundtrack subsection stand out as its own section? and 2) I think that the layout for the awards could be improved, especially in terms of making the column widths consistent. Otherwise, great work! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soundtrack section fixed. I set the width of the table to 55 and it looked simply awful, so I didn't save it. If you know how to make it better, please do. --Moni3 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mulholland_Drive_(film)&oldid=1138467316"