Talk:Mulholland Drive (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mulholland Drive (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Mulholland Drive (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 12, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 12, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 21, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Film: French / Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Greatest of ALL time vs Greatest of 21st century

I'd say being voted as the best film of the 21st century by an esteemed panel is enough to be one of the greatest films of all time. Being ranked 28th best movie of all time by one of the most prestigious groups in cinema history is also a reason to put it as a greatest of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomyeahboss (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomyeahboss: I think differently. Especially because the lead says "widely regarded as..." which gives the impression that most critics and publications hold that opinion, which is not the case. Most publications mentioned here specify that it is considered one of the best films of the decade\century. Therefore the lead is accurate as it now stands. - Daveout(talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general phrasing violates WP:PUFFERY. Just report each of the two polls (all-time and 21st-century) and perhaps add more as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a bigger problem with the term "widely regarded" when you've basically just got one poll describing it in such terms. I agree that the generalisation is not necessary when all you've got is two polls. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert didn't give it 4 stars at first

If I'm not mistaken it was around 2, and he changed it to 4 straight after it got awards and critical acclaim. 91.231.118.246 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. If he did, he changed it before he and Richard Roeper reviewed it on At the Movies; here is his original review of the film on siskelebert.org: https://siskelebert.org/?p=12650 Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Classic"

"Mulholland Drive has been compared with Billy Wilder's film noir classic Sunset Boulevard (1950), another tale about broken dreams in Hollywood"

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Isn't it more of a subjective thing rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic"? Is it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections in article

Currently there is a "reception and legacy" subsection, alongside "Home Media" and "Box Office", below the "Release" heading. And then there is a separate heading "Awards and honors" as well. Why have this confusing layout compared to other film articles on wikipedia? See any Lynch film Blue Velvet as an example. Should be changed to the following format: "Release" heading with "Home Media" subheading; "Reception" heading with subheadings of "Box Office", "Critical Reception", "Legacy", "Accolades".

Relatedly, why not include the film's nominations at the academy awards, golden globes, etc. in the table rather than needlessly listing them in a separate paragraph? Yeoutie (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM says, "There is no defined order of the sections... he following subsections are presented in the order in which they typically appear, but the structure and ordering may vary between film articles. See also MOS:SECTIONORDER." There is no requirement for every film article to look the same, and if this became a Featured Article with this layout, it's likely fine, just different. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the awards, interestingly, you can see the earliest FA version here, and it has a really nice-looking presentation of the awards. I think that should be brought back. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Love

Under the "romantic content" section there is extensive citing and discussion of Heather Love's article on Mulholland but it seems (to me at least) to generally misrepresent her point and cherry pick quotes to appear as a critique of Lynch's use of lesbian cliché as insensitive and homophobic and male gaze-y or something of that sort. Love is more interested, imo, in the use of the lesbian as an other and therefore a conduit for modern universalised/atomised tragedy -- and indeed directly shows that she doesn't really agree with those 'disturbed by Lynch's representation of lesbians as objects of male fantasy'. I find that this is a disingenuous citing of her work as an example of those criticising MH for perpetuating stereotype because that's not her point at all. I'm sure it was a common argument made and worth discussing, but maybe worth considering a different source ... (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]