Interpreting David Lynch’s ‘Mulholland Drive’ (2001)

Important note: this article will assume you’ve already seen the film, and are therefore immune to ‘spoilers’. <h1>The world of the non-linear narrative</h1> You will really need to see the film for yourself to understand how beautifully non-sequential the narrative is, though all the while always holding your attention, as well as always keeping you wanting to know more. In the hands of a lesser talent, this lack of linear storytelling would be seen as asking for trouble — and a sure sign of directorial incompetence — but Mulholland Drive was soon recognised as a masterwork, and as a creation worthy of serious attention. Apparently it didn’t do too well at the box office on release, but hopefully by now it has recouped many times over the money invested in its making. And its extremely uncertain storyline has led to a massive interpretative industry — see for example the many links listed here <a href="http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com/md2001.html" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.timebetweenthenotes.com/md2001.html </a>— with an army of keyboard sleuths offering complex accounts of how to turn its non-linear narrative into a strictly linear one. My personal favourite breaks the film down into a series of segments which it then rearranges non-sequentially, thus: <a href="https://medium.com/counterarts/interpreting-david-lynchs-mulholland-drive-2001-b3c5d7b6c04e">Learn More</a>