← Back to Reviews
in
Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001)
Mulholland Dr. is another film everybody seems to love, but I only slightly like. My favorite scene is when Naomi Watts "acts" with Chad Everett. That's "real" and doesn't need twists to make commentary about Hollywood vs. reality. I guess I'm just a wet blanket, sitting all alone in the corner at this big party Lynch is having with everyone else. I do think the film is interesting and leads to some thought-provoking ideas but I'm just not fully drawn in. Sometimes I find Lynch's atmosphere and "audacity" downright silly, but I do find this one better than most.
It pretty much made sense to me the first time - at least my interpretation. Then I read the experts and their explanation deflated me and the film. Are there really any films which don't allow someone to "engage" with them? It seems that opposite ones engage people who are looking for "opposite things". I don't want my films to be spoon-fed, but I'd like to know my interpretations partially agree with what the creator intended. If not, why isn't someone's interpretation of a film as "idiotic nonsense" make as much sense as the interpretation of it as "poetic beauty"? Sorry about the comments. They're not meant as a debate or a popularity contest because I'll lose that. Just think of it as the loyal opposition saying hello and telling you to have fun as much as you can because sometimes I apparently don't.
Mulholland Dr. is another film everybody seems to love, but I only slightly like. My favorite scene is when Naomi Watts "acts" with Chad Everett. That's "real" and doesn't need twists to make commentary about Hollywood vs. reality. I guess I'm just a wet blanket, sitting all alone in the corner at this big party Lynch is having with everyone else. I do think the film is interesting and leads to some thought-provoking ideas but I'm just not fully drawn in. Sometimes I find Lynch's atmosphere and "audacity" downright silly, but I do find this one better than most.
It pretty much made sense to me the first time - at least my interpretation. Then I read the experts and their explanation deflated me and the film. Are there really any films which don't allow someone to "engage" with them? It seems that opposite ones engage people who are looking for "opposite things". I don't want my films to be spoon-fed, but I'd like to know my interpretations partially agree with what the creator intended. If not, why isn't someone's interpretation of a film as "idiotic nonsense" make as much sense as the interpretation of it as "poetic beauty"? Sorry about the comments. They're not meant as a debate or a popularity contest because I'll lose that. Just think of it as the loyal opposition saying hello and telling you to have fun as much as you can because sometimes I apparently don't.