I believe David Lynch's _Mulholland Drive_ is my favorite film.

Those of you who have long been members here remember me. But the newbies among you will not quite comprehend how unsettling this is for me to say. Say it I will, however:

After I don't know how many screenings of it, I have come to realize that David Lynch's 2001 masterpiece (ah, how appropriate the year of its release!) Mulholland Drive is, by all personal measures, my favorite film.

In reading much about David Lynch, I am grateful to note that he says a "majority" of Stanley Kubrick's films are in his personal top ten. Which makes sense, given the temporally dislocated, nonlinear nature of Mr. Lynch's own films. From that standpoint, it would make sense that a lifelong devotee of 2001: A Space Odyssey would, at the very least, take to Mulholland Drive.

What is it about that film that sticks so effectively? No single element of the Lynch masterpiece upends any other; rather, we're talking about the case of a film that is so much more than the sum of its parts. Naomi Watts as Betty Elms/Diane Selwyn and Laura Elena Harring as "Rita" and Camilla Rhodes certainly form the core to one's attraction to Mulholland Drive, as does Justin Theroux's Adam Kesher. The juxtaposition of hard "reality" (Diane, Camilla) against a longed-for, hoped-for reality (Betty, "Rita"), culminating in a verdict of "all is illusion" at the Club Silencio certainly brings the seemingly unrelated story elements into an "I-see-it-now!" understanding.

Yet, when one returns to the film, he or she continues to see new aspects to it -- making David Lynch's work very much "Kubrickian" in nature.

Also like a Stanley Kubrick film, David Lynch's work here increases its impact by never being "boring" and making one realize that the more questions he or she has the more he or she must look at the film to penetrate it. As Mr. Kubrick said of his 1968 masterpiece, it has succeeded if it makes one ask questions. Likewise, Mullholland Drive.

I believe it is possible to get a definitive handle on this film, but that will requre yet more screenings, something, of course, I am more than willing to enjoy. For even if all questions are never answered, one is enriched by the experience. Mulholland Drive, like 2001: A Space Odyssey before it, at the very least rewards the viewer with the immeasurable joy that only a truly great film can.

Though I love 2001 as much as I ever have, I love Mullholland Drive just a little bit more. And I never thought I would say that.

Jeremiah:

If you do a search on this board, you will find an earlier thread I started some time in 2002 (I think), in which I lauded Mulholland Drive as "bravura filmmaking." I was ecstatic about Mr. Lynch's film from the get-go. Then, after about three screenings of it, I put it away for a few years, often thinking about the film but not feeling any sort of "need" to go back to it so soon. Then, about a year and a half ago, I just had to rescreen the work. The rescreenings started occurring more frequently over the months, to the point I was looking at Mullhollad Drive about every two or three weeks or so. Over the course of studying the film (and I do mean studying it), I realized ever so slowly that the film had crept up to the top spot in my own top ten. It's my personal compliment to the film.

It's also how 2001: A Space Odyssey affected me. I first saw it in 1968, and after that first 70mm screening, I was perplexed, almost angry by what Mr. Kubrick had "failed" to do: give us a good, old-fashioned space adventure. Instead, he gave us an experimental film that actually had something to say. I was puzzled by Mr. Kubrick's production, and I could not get the film out of my mind. So, in 1970, I went to see it again. And I would end up, over a two-week period, seeing the film about eight times. Then, I returned to screenings of it whenever the film popped up and in whichever format -- 35mm, 70mm, even 16mm (both 'scope and flat). During this process, of course, 2001 had become my favorite film.

This is a long-winded way of saying how I arrived at realizing, in two entirely different periods of my life, how I "realized" a film had become my "favorite."

Jason Roer:

Your comments are so similar to my own feelings about this film (as well as other films that occupy my most-favored list). As you note, there is so much going on in any given frame. Literally, I find myself looking at the composition, if only to marvel at it. And, of course, you properly draw attention to the sound design and to Angelo Badalamenti's score. I love how, during the film's opening shots, we shift from music appropriate to a jitterbug contest to the somber, chord-emphatic music as the car lights hit upon the "Mullholland Dr." street sigh. So evocative.

By the way, for the newbies: I live in Los Angeles. Also, the neighborhood in which much of the action in Mullholland Drive takes place, is my neighborhood. I'm just three or four blocks east of Havenhurst Avenue (which is in West Hollywood), and I'm all of five blocks west of Sierra Bonita (where Diane Selwyn's apartment is located). My own street has itself been the location of many a shoot (for one example, remember in Brian DePalma's Body Double, when Craig Wasson's Jake Scully is coming home to his apartment only to find his girlfriend in bed with another man? That apartment building is diagonally across the street from me; I look at it every morning when I drink my coffee).

Patrick: I guess my reply to Jeremiah sort of answered your own question!

Mike: Oh how I miss that 2001 title shot. Why, by the way, has HTF gone over to avatars? (Just message me with the answer, fella.)

It's great to see all of you.

Would that be Betty and "Rita's" love scene, Aaron? :)

As for that love scene, I agree with what I've read many critics say: It is an almost emblematic scene for the 2000s, a refreshingly innocent portrayal of non-innocence. And I love the women's dialogue: Betty: "Have you ever done this before?" "Rita:" "I don't know. Have you?"

It is, even as our friend Steve suggests, a "naughtier" aspect of the film but, also, so perfect. I love the scene.

Robert: I have read that Mike Anderson is, in fact, a midget (or, at the least, very, very short). I understand that the arms and legs of his as seen in the film are protheses, to make his head seem smaller in proportion to his body.

By the way, as here's a little "HTF insider" information here for you: The moderators can edit posts without incurring the "Edited by [thread starter]/date/time" stamp at the bottom of a post. I used to enjoy that feature!

Now, as a regular citizen again, I see with horror that not only do I now incur the "Edited by Jack Briggs" stamp, but I still cannot edit the title line for some reason -- which is what I scrambled to do when, upon returning here this morning, I noticed with concern that I had managed to misspell the word/name "Mulholland" in the very thread title where I'm calling the film my personal favorite.

Oh, the horrors!