Thoughts on Lost Highway?
Reply to Topic
I'd be interested in what the forum members thought the Robert Blake character was or represented? I have my own ideas
WARNING: ""[Spoilers" spoilers below
" The short answer is that I think the mystery man is Bill Pullman's character's subconscious. His character is trying to escape or rather reinvent his past, and I think Blake's character is not allowing Pullman's character to escape.
WARNING: spoilers below
Blake's character using a videocamera as well is I'd say represents the real memories Pullman is trying to avoid. We see earlier Pullman states he doesn't like videocameras because he likes to "remember things his own way" rather than having an exact record.
X
Favorite Movies
My initial reaction was weak story because of the looping and changing main characters. Theres a puzzle in there and I am not going to expend the mental energy to put it together. But now here two days later it suddenly came to me and I completely got it. The underlying premise and the entire central plot device and the moral and meaning and the point of the entire thing, what Lynch's ultimate motive was. Its so simplistic and makes perfect sense. Im not giving it away though and knowing this doesnt make me like the movie any more than before either.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I’m a huge Lynch fan and actually love this one. Understand the ‘weak story’ POV etc., but I love the suddenness of the plot, in a way, how
, and all the unevenness in plot and tone in this one for me is more help than hindrance. It’s delightfully weird.
WARNING: spoilers below
one guy inexplicably turns into another (think it works better here than Mulholland Drive, actually — blasphemous, I know)
X
Favorite Movies
Best reason to watch Lost Highway is below.
Back when she was small. By the time she got on Medium, she was large.
I think this is his most underrated film.
I think it is his best film, and I know it is my favorite.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Glad you rediscovered and enjoyed 'Lost Highway'! It's often overshadowed by Lynch's other works, but its intricate narrative, surreal elements, and Patricia Arquette's compelling performance make it a hidden gem in Lynch's filmography The dream-reality duality and Lynch's signature mystique shine, setting the stage for his later masterpieces.
It's one of my favorite movies of all time. The lack of chronology makes you wonder what is a dream and what is real and it is that what makes this movie in particular, but also other movies of Lynch so great IMO. And indeed, Arquette was hot as hell.
Last edited by LavidDynch; 11-12-23 at 04:08 PM.
It's one of my favorite movies of all time. The lack of chronology makes you wonder what was a dream and what was real and it is that what makes this movie in particular, but also other movies of Lynch so great IMO. And indeed, Arquette was hot as hell.
I think it is all a dream, an experiential ouroboros, one reality swallowing another. The only thing we know for sure is that Dick Laurent is dead.
Not sure if all events are a dream, but most of the scenes probaby are.
I'm flip-flopping between the "first 40 minutes being real and the flashbacks being real" and "only the flashbacks being real".
With regard the first theory, it would make the whole the transformation from limp artist to young dude meaningless if those first scenes are also a dream. Ofc the ones with the mystery man didn't illustrate reality.
One scene in particular does seem real.
WARNING: spoilers below
the moment at the very beginning when the automatic blinds open.
I think his wife’s dismembered body is there on the other side of the bed at that moment.*
I think his wife’s dismembered body is there on the other side of the bed at that moment.*
Not sure if all events are a dream, but most of the scenes probaby are.
I'm flip-flopping between the "first 40 minutes being real and the flashbacks being real" and "only the flashbacks being real".
With regard the first theory, it would make the whole the transformation from limp artist to young dude meaningless if those first scenes are also a dream. Ofc the ones with the mystery man didn't illustrate reality.
One scene in particular does seem real.
I'm flip-flopping between the "first 40 minutes being real and the flashbacks being real" and "only the flashbacks being real".
With regard the first theory, it would make the whole the transformation from limp artist to young dude meaningless if those first scenes are also a dream. Ofc the ones with the mystery man didn't illustrate reality.
One scene in particular does seem real.
WARNING: spoilers below
the moment at the very beginning when the automatic blinds open.
I think his wife’s dismembered body is there on the other side of the bed at that moment.*
I think his wife’s dismembered body is there on the other side of the bed at that moment.*
I don't think that the film is a "Whodunnit?" It's not a conventional mystery inviting us to sort out it before the end. Rather we're in the blurry position of the boy and the man, experiencing paranoia, jealously, rage, and fear. Even if there is a logical answer to the journalist's questions of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How, but do these questions matter? In the real world there would, by necessity, be mundane answers. But we're not in the real world. We're in Lynch's.
I don't think that the film is a "Whodunnit?" It's not a conventional mystery inviting us to sort out it before the end. Rather we're in the blurry position of the boy and the man, experiencing paranoia, jealously, rage, and fear. Even if there is a logical answer to the journalist's questions of Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How, but do these questions matter? In the real world there would, by necessity, be mundane answers. But we're not in the real world. We're in Lynch's.
If we're going to look it from Lynchs pov, there are no clear lines and the movie is like a painting with blurring lines.
Oh I agree, but it's open for interpretation, even when Lynch didn't necessarily mean that.
If we read against the intended reading, what shall be our measure of interpretation? It is here that we will find that our interpretation will have to produce, in some way, a better movie. Is it a better movie if it all makes sense? I don't know, it could be? Depends on the reading, right? If we play the "making sense" game, however, the depths of our reading will have conform with and make sense out of the dappling surface details Mr. Lynch has left us. And it is here that I fear we will be on a fool's errand as the text is vague, undetermined, and perhaps even self-contradictory. We might spend the rest of our lives as Russel Nash connecting threads between pictures in our grand conspiracy theory of the film, unable to really say which features are really real and which ones are not. If you can impose order on the chaos, you might arrive at a fun interpretation of the text. Myself, I suspect no reading would definitively compass the facts and that even if it did, it would not likely make for a better film.
Also, I have a general policy: If a creator has not left behind enough detail to warrant closure (i.e., if there isn't a "there" there), I don't feel that it is my job to perform the labor of providing one for him.
That stated, we can play the game. Do you have a linear account of what happened?
Sure. Endlessly so.
If we read against the intended reading, what shall be our measure of interpretation? It is here that we will find that our interpretation will have to produce, in some way, a better movie. Is it a better movie if it all makes sense? I don't know, it could be? Depends on the reading, right? If we play the "making sense" game, however, the depths of our reading will have conform with and make sense out of the dappling surface details Mr. Lynch has left us. And it is here that I fear we will be on a fool's errand as the text is vague, undetermined, and perhaps even self-contradictory. We might spend the rest of our lives as Russel Nash connecting threads between pictures in our grand conspiracy theory of the film, unable to really say which features are really real and which ones are not. If you can impose order on the chaos, you might arrive at a fun interpretation of the text. Myself, I suspect no reading would definitively compass the facts and that even if it did, it would not likely make for a better film.
Also, I have a general policy: If a creator has not left behind enough detail to warrant closure (i.e., if there isn't a "there" there), I don't feel that it is my job to perform the labor of providing one for him.
That stated, we can play the game. Do you have a linear account of what happened?
If we read against the intended reading, what shall be our measure of interpretation? It is here that we will find that our interpretation will have to produce, in some way, a better movie. Is it a better movie if it all makes sense? I don't know, it could be? Depends on the reading, right? If we play the "making sense" game, however, the depths of our reading will have conform with and make sense out of the dappling surface details Mr. Lynch has left us. And it is here that I fear we will be on a fool's errand as the text is vague, undetermined, and perhaps even self-contradictory. We might spend the rest of our lives as Russel Nash connecting threads between pictures in our grand conspiracy theory of the film, unable to really say which features are really real and which ones are not. If you can impose order on the chaos, you might arrive at a fun interpretation of the text. Myself, I suspect no reading would definitively compass the facts and that even if it did, it would not likely make for a better film.
Also, I have a general policy: If a creator has not left behind enough detail to warrant closure (i.e., if there isn't a "there" there), I don't feel that it is my job to perform the labor of providing one for him.
That stated, we can play the game. Do you have a linear account of what happened?
All valid points.
I'd like to play this particular game if I am going to rewatch the movie in the (near?) future. It would make the qualitiy of the discussion better if it is recently watched.