Yes, I admit it. I am crazy. A lunatic. A madman. This being the third viewing, I have probably spent more money seeing this movie in theaters than it will cost to buy the dvd. But you see, I had to watch it again. After reading more stuff about it, plus that Ebert article Shadowkiller linked on Content Solutions, I just had to. The movie where finding out who matches up with what identity is not readily obvious. Besides, I needed to test the theory I put forth in my last log entry to see if such an interpretation would hold up consistently.

So tonight, there I was. This time, in one of the upper floor auditoriums of the Mayan down in Denver. Smaller screen than the main one where I first saw it, but an advantage of stadium style seating. As I sat, waiting for the movie to begin, I observed that the room around me was vaguely similar to one of the sets in the film. I was even at roughly the same elevation and angle that Betty and Rita had been relative to the stage. I entertained myself by imagining the illusionist walking out onto the platform in meatspace to make his grandiose proclamations.

No aye banda.

By the time the show began, the auditorium was completely packed. (Given that the Mayan and one theater in Boulder are the only places in the entire area where one can see this film, that's not surprising. Like Memento, huge buzz + limited screens = packed crowds.) Judging by audience reactions to several of the scenes, I would speculate I was far from the only veteran of the film in attendance. Once again, this spiraling tale, set in the dream factory of Hollywood, worked its spell.

After a third viewing, I'm still somewhat at a loss. It is entirely possible, and quite likely, that the whole thing is nothing more than a gigantic two and a half hour long nonstop non sequitur. Yet it still compels the viewer to try to make sense of the mish mash. In any case, it doesn't get any less enjoyable even after 2 times through. In some ways, it's even more fun to relish with foreknowledge of what is to come.

Well, both of the theories I presented in previous entries pretty much work when viewing the movie in those contexts. My statements certainly don't serve to explain everything; there might even be a few holes with regard to some specifics. But as a general matter, I think my outline works fairly well as a frame for the events. Then again, the same could be said of the Salon article, because that works too. So do many of the letters written by Salon readers. This is true despite the fact that there are many contradictions between different people's interpretations. How can this be?

There's lots of ambiguity in the storytelling. (There I go, stating the obvious.) Phrases in the dialog, many of them uttered repeatedly, could be taken to mean or signify all sorts of different things. Much of the visual imagery echos that which has come before it. There are particular details which only gain context in light of something else to be shown later on. There's lots of cinematic slight of hand going on as well; probably enough for even a casual observer such as myself to fill an entire commentary track noting.

I'm going to discuss a few of the specific things I noted this time around. Some of what follows could be considered spoiler material, so if you're sensitive to that, don't read the rest. Readers who haven't seen the movie may or may not be able to make any sense of what I say anyway. Here goes...

On cinematic language. It would seem that for many shots taken from the perspective of one of the characters, a "hovering" steadicam is often used. One obvious place is when Betty enters her apartment, and we see things from her POV. A very wobbly steadicam. I think there are severel other examples as well.

The reason I mention this is because during the first scene in Winkie's, in which one man sitting at the table describes his nightmare to the other, the camera wanders and wobbles up and down and side to side a lot. Hovering to the point of distraction. (I noticed it on first viewing, but quickly forgot a few minutes later amidst all the other threads if storyline.)

This time, I paid more careful attention to this scene, as well as what came before and after it. It starts right after Rita goes to sleep under that table while she's hiding in Betty's aunt's house. Right after the scene ends, with the big scary dude appearing from behind the wall causing the man to faint, we cut to Rita waking up.

I submit that this entire sequence is Rita's dream, and the hovering camera is from her perspective. All it's really missing to make it totally obvious is a transition in which the picture turns into curvy waves and fades to white, accompanied by "dream chimes". (Having noted this, I looked for signs that future scenes featuring the director might also be Rita's dream. While the scene where the director meets with the executives does directly follow another instance of Rita going to sleep, that pattern doesn't seem to hold for very long, indicating that the director storyline is probably no less an illusion than Rita herself, although I'm sure if one really wanted to, even that could be debated.)

Another interesting use of camera technique: Push in super close on an object, followed by a dissolve. We see it in the pillow at the very beginning. Push in on the pink pillow, which dissolves to the sign of Mulholland Dr. The scene where Rita/Camilla is about to be murdered in the limo.

I didn't consciously notice it until this third viewing, but the same type of "push in + dissolve" is used when Rita sees the poster from which she gains her name. The camera pushes in tight on the poster, and dissolves to a shot of Betty in the bedroom.

What does it mean? Is there a significance to this technique? I could interpret it as a way of hinting to the audience that an identity transplant (mostly described in my previous entry), was taking place. The first, into the pillow, when Diane "resets" into becoming Betty. The second is when Camilla's shift into the character of Rita is complete.

That's just a theory. Don't throw too many tomatoes at me if you have a different idea. :)

Actually, now that I think about it, an extreme version of the push in + dissolve is used when Rita opens the blue box, and we transition to the body of Diane (or Betty) being awakened from the bed, decaying, getting up, etc. Another identity shift. Interesting!

Trying to think of what else I saw... Lots of things, but it's hard to keep them all in the front of my head at the same time.

A fiarly obvious one, but I think I'll connect these dots anyway. The image of the girl singing in the theater who passes out echoes the audition where the director names "this is the girl" in several ways. Most obviously, they both feature someone lip syncing with a tape recorder. Also, both initially appear to be genuine until something else is revealed to render them fakes. The audition scene starts with a close up, which very gradually pulls back to reveal the facade of a sound stage. The Silencio theater girl passes out, abruptly cutting off the illusion that her performance is "real".

Another one: This could shoot a hole in my theory. Or it could just be a continuity error, but I doubt it. (How do you even define "continuity error" in a film like this?) The rotting corpse Betty and Rita discover in the bed has a black slip on. When Diane shoots herself at the very end, she is wearing her white robe. Therefore, the only way that corpse could be Diane's dead body is if somebody else comes in and tampers with the body before Betty and Rita discover it. Unlikely. But again, with a film like this, all bets are off.

There are other ideas. Some I can remember at this moment. Some have slipped my mind since leaving the theater. In any case, I need to get some sleep, so I'm going to leave the rest of this mystery unsolved for now. Maybe on a future occassion, I'll be insane enough to take in yet another viewing, and then I can type another mile long meandering babble about it. Until then, let's let it rest!