Mulholland Dr. Discussion - Sedai Help Me Out!

And I didn't necessarily mean you, either! I just thought it could turn into that depending on who else chimed in here.

[/mutualadmirationsociety off]

I'll hang onto the movie for a few days and watch it again, with hubby the Lynch-lover and see how it flies a second time. And in a few months I'll rent it again to see whether time is kind to it.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

__________________

I've read some very interesting interpretations of Mullholland Drive on this thread, and I have come to the conclusion that a lot people on this thread like some crappy films!

Just joking!

Nah really, I think this is fantastic four star film. I still don't get it, but have a much better understanding after reading everybody elses views.

But Sedai, what about the sequence in the opera? I ask because this, for me, was the standout sequence and I always felt that it was creepy as much it was emotional. I'm still trying the rack my brains with the symbolism or metaphor of that sequence. I don't remember any of the previous posters mentioning, so that's why i'm asking.

Yup, that is really the lynch-pin scene of the film. The MC there basically tells us what is going on, in his own cryptic way... It is all an illusion, there is no band...

Two best scenes in the film: The Sylvia North audition and Club Silencio

I think a total of 3 parts are the best in the film:

The Beginning
The Middle
The End

Okay, so, I saw this a couple weeks ago. I have a few thoughts on it, but they are admittedly scattered, so I'll just say whatever comes to mind and hope it makes sense.

I can see why Mulholland Dr. is such a polarizing film. In addition to the question of whether or not it's a good film, a lot of people seem to get hung up on the issue of whether or not David Lynch is a good storyteller. In other words, while few would deny that the film is technically impressive, and pretty interesting, many are hesitant to give Lynch too much credit for what they feel is little more than intriguing randomness.

I'll take each question in order...

Is It A Good Film?
I found myself asking this as I watched it. Afterwards, while reading some of the theories and analysis surrounding it, I started to ask myself broader and broader questions, such as "is it a good puzzle?" and "is it interesting/entertaining?" The more I learned and thought about it, the less I thought of it as a movie.

I think, given that I was entertained throughout and captivated by some of the visuals, I have to agree that it's a good film. How good, I'm not quite sure, but definitely worth my time and worth thinking about. That's enough to make it a good film in my book.

Is It A Good Story?
This is where I suspect I will diverge from Mike and Bobby; I don't think the story is particularly good. It's not bad, but I don't find it particularly unique or enthralling. But of course, the story itself is unimportant; what people either like or hate about it is the way he's pulled back, and fuzzied everything up. I don't know that it takes a tremendous amount of skill to distort a story like this.

So, you can put me down in the perhaps small camp of people who like the film, find it worth watching, but are not especially impressed with its intricacies. I think that many things can appear to be a great mystery if the storyteller just takes enough time to obfuscate even the most pedestrian of tales, and I think that's kind of what's happened here.

Of course, none of this means it isn't valuable, or a very good puzzle. But as, say, a screenplay, I can't say I think a whole lot of it.

Other Stuff
One thing I noticed early on is that Lynch seems to like taking everday things and making them tense. The most obvious example is just glancing behind a restaurant in broad daylight. Somehow, he makes it terrifying. In any other circumstance, I think I'd have found the "bum" (if that's what he's supposed to be) downright comical looking, but Lynch set the mood, and cast an actor who conveyed genuine fear, and it worked beautifully.

This happens all throughout the movie; there are many tense and/or scary moments, but almost all of it takes place during the day. He doesn't use anything as cliche as the dark to create tension. I found his ability to create tension in otherwise boring circumstances very impressive.

Also, while most of the performances were quite good, Naomi Watts definitely stands out. She's really something else in this film. I left more impressed with her than anyone else involved in the production.

Something else I find interesting is that Mike/Sedai likes it so much. Now, I'm definitely not accusing you of any sort of contradiction, Mike, but I look at Mulholland Dr. in much the way you look at Memento; fairly average story, great technical precision, with a major gimmick that some people find enthralling. They're two different films, of course, so there's nothing wrong with loving one and being lukewarm on the other, but I think this comparison best conveys my feelings towards the movie.

Other than that, I have to admit also being somewhat impressed with the range of theories out there. Some of them make a good deal more sense than I would have guessed. Granted, I'm of the mind that if you throw enough vague symbolism into a movie, smart people will find meaning whether it's there or not, but I think I might be more impressed by several bits of fan analysis than I am with the film itself, if you follow.

I might see it again at one point, to see how many new things I can pick up on, though I've already done a fair amount of reading on the topic, so a lot of what I notice I'll probably have already read about.

Anyway, well worth watching. A better puzzle than a story, and a better experience than a film, but intriguing all the same. I'd recommend it just to make sure it's seen.

Dunno if any of this will be considered blasphemous, but there it is.

Awesome! A great analysis, and, so YOU. Balanced, well thought out, and concise. A lot of what I love about the film is the overall feel of the thing, and the cinematic prowess you mention in scenes like the diner. Remember, I disliked the film first run through, but was really affected by it, so I returned to it a few days later to explore the subconscious feelings I was having.

As for the week story, I tend to disagree, but, that said, I am more into the global, metaphorical trappings of the film at this point more so than decoding the obtuse narrative. I am pretty solid on what is going on at this point, and I love diving into the sea of symbolism that is MD. I also really like the film a whole hell of a lot on a purely technical basis. The way the visuals and score amorphously shift and merge into the whole is something I find mesmerizing.

RE: N. Watts WHAT a stellar turn by this girl! One of my favorite performances in film, ever. Fantastic...

i hated that movie , no story , and is played off like a suspense movie

it's like they took everything that makes a movie bad and put it into one

This isn't going to be pretty...

Actually, there is a story. Sorry you missed it. You seem to list "played of like a suspense movie" in a negative connotation. You don't like suspense? Or... is it that the film wasn't what you thought it was going to be... which to me, is never a valid excuse. The film is part suspense, sure...also a love story too.... oh, and a mystery... a film noir...and surrealist study of cinema... and a Hollywood allegory...also a study of duality... also covers some dream theory as well.

Fantastic piece of cinema.


To each his own, though...

i really hate the suspense genre , once you've seen it - it's not entertaining any more

but what i really hate about this movie is it builds all these characters and events that aren't really signifigant and might if there was some kind of amazing ending - but it's all thrown away and turns into some crappy surreal twist

For this to be true, you'd have to believe that every suspenseful film is like every other suspenseful film, which is a pretty odd claim.

Besides, I'm not really aware of any "suspense genre." Even action films feature a good deal of suspense, after all; generating excitement depends on it. How do you define the genre, exactly?

well apparently there are enough movies that rely on suspense that they have a whole isle called "Suspense" and "Suspense/Drama"

Right, but I asked how you defined it, because you said you didn't like any of them. Are you saying, then, that you automatically dislike anything that Blockbuster (or whichever aisle you're referring to) chooses to file under "Suspense"? Because you just gave Zodiac an A grade in another thread, and I imagine that would qualify.

Regardless, there are just too many films in every genre for someone who genuinely enjoys films to not like any of them. So if someone says they don't like any films in a given genre, I have to conclude that they either have an unusual definition of that genre, or haven't seen many.

Of course, categorizing films by genre is a deeply flawed practice to begin with, but that's another matter.

Crappy surreal twist? Since surrealist film is one of my favorite genres, I think we will just have to agree to disagree here...

The characters and events ARE indeed significant. There clearly a relation between the events of the first section of the film, and the events of the last section. Plenty of stuff out there explaining it, if it went by you...

Know what you mean, Yoda. I spent too much time trying to make sense out of Mulholland Falls; I wouldn't stand a chance with Mulholland Dr. Besides....Billy Ray Cyrus???

Just a cameo, and it works ever so well...

I read an article on Cinema a little while ago talking about how it was a medium of images, and narrative was secondary in film as a frame in which a series of said images are placed. I'm not sure to what extent I'd consider that true, but I think it's a good perspective to have in mind when watching this film. It was probably the most chilling film I've ever seen. Now, it's certainly fair to say that we're emotionally affected by what happens to the characters because a film's portrayal of their interactions has led us to feel some kind of connection with them. However, I don't think the two can be present and simply not operating on the same plane. In other words...I became invested in the film's characters in a very specific way. I was shown that I could never predict what these people would do, and I was led to be on the edge of my seat at all times, as each surprise compounded with the others. I was chilled and thrilled not because I cared about what happened to these people as human beings...but because whatever happened to them would send me further into the rabbit hole, and I was relying on them for every bit of orientation (or lack thereof) to this "reality" I recieved. With the characters being such unstable projections that had no characteristics I could pin down as logical or real I was highly aware of the fact that they were characters being manipulated to affect me. At the same time, I was so immersed in the film because of the puzzle it presented and it's masterfully rendered mood, that I felt like a I was inside of the film, and I waited to see what these characters would do because it was the deciding factor of what would happen to the ever-shifting reality they provided for me. I think scenes like the woman saying silencio at the end of the film, and Betty's sexually charged audition would be pretty powerful with very little context...so the fact that there is a whole movie around them sets the intensity at an incredible height because they aren't just powerful images, they're powerful images at the core of something that is already powerful in itself. I guess a good metaphor for the characters in the film would be that I see them as tourguides (much like Betty's guiding of the innocent, blank Rita or Camilla's leading of Betty through the shortcut to the party toward the end of the film). Surrealism often captivates me without context, so the fact that there is a base consistency of my moving through each increasingly intense, absurd vignette with the same people gives it a stable core that intensifies, greatly, all of the instability that surrounds it.

It's three-thirty in the morning and I'm sure that I've been only semi coherent here and used words like "intense" far too many times, so I'll stop. I look forward to discussing this film more at a time when I'm in more of a lucid state. Sedai, are you up for it sometime soon?

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

One More Thing: This clearly isn't the case, but I think it's interesting. When Diane hired the hitman, I suddenly had the following thought, which was later dispelled. Diane hired the hitman, but the hit was not a success. However, Camilla suffered amnesia due to the head injury she received in the car accident, she happened to go to the house in which Diane lived, and so Diane lied to her and played along, for both their sake but mostly her own. It was just a split second thought that I quickly realized did not check out, but I find it interesting that my reasoning mind was so keen to resist accepting that many of the events had been imagined.