Mulholland Drive (2001) (1 Viewer)

[Ryan Jameson]

Eric, you're probably right. I too think a commentary on this movie may ruin it for me. After all, wasn't Bladerunner a lot more interesting when we didn't know if Decker was human or a replicant, and we could discuss it however much we wanted.

 

[ScottH]

Ryan & Eric...both good points. I still, however, would be interested in hearing some of what Lynch has to say about it. Perhaps a commentary, but without revealing too much about the intricacies of the plot. Maybe more of a "technical" commentary. I don't know...:frowning:

 

[Greg Smith]

Umm, how did that one part where that stuff happened relate to that other part where that other stuff happened? You know, the stuff??

To appear less ignorant, people tend to throw kudos on stuff they don't understand. Take published philosophical papers. They almost necessarily have either faulty arguments or faulty conclusions or both, so the author cannot write simply and clearly. He'd be found out.

Instead he writes convoluted sentences using pompous, rarely used words that only confuse the audience, which is his desire. That way those who become confused while reading it feel that they must be lacking some sort of intelligence and, not to be outdone by those people who do claim to understand it, they too shower the author with praise for his work.

Same with this movie. We don't understand it, so then it must be over our heads and therefore the director/writer must be a genius.

I guarantee you I could write and direct a film that made no damn sense. Bet on it.

I would probably find it very difficult to clearly communicate my message and vision, however. Much as this film has.

 

[Eric Walsh]

Greg,
Though this film may seem not to make sense I think that we all can make our own personal sense out of it. I think this film is the work of genius not because it makes sense, or because it is over my head, but because it impacted me on some level and some way that I do not understand and do not really care to understand. It is just a good film and I think these people that throw kudos at it, like me, are not trying to sound more intelligent but just expressing their opinions much the way you are.

-Eric

 

[mike martin]

Well, i thought it was brilliant after the first viewing and thought I understood it as well. That is not to say I think I know what Lynch was trying to say. Sometimes I don't even think he knows. There is a pretty cool story on the Twin Peaks DVD where one of the actors recounts David in the editing room. He is viewing some scene or another and says something to the effect of "Oh, that's what I meant by that." As though he himself just understood what he had done. Lynch is a genious in the truest form. Genious can not be tought, and can not be earned through hard work, it simply is; and often the genious him/herself cannot fully comprehend their own talent. Lynch created something that has layers and layers of meaning. I watched the second time this weakend and found myself reafirming my own suspisions of the "meaning" all the while seeing possible others (and in the back of my head wondering if Lynch had duped us all by simply throwing together all the elements of the pilot with nonsense scenes to thread them together).

That being said, Ebert makes one hell of a good point. This film is brilliant, even if it doesn't make sense. It can be viewed as a series of scenes, each one perfect in it's own way. It is a compilation of mini movies each of which is capable of transfixing you, scaring you, creeping you out, giving you a laugh, or perhaps a tingle in the bottom.

I've seen plenty "brilliant" movies that are just incoherant drivel. This isn't one of those.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Okay, I'm late to the party, but I'll throw in my two cents. I thought the film was wonderful. I watched it, turned it over in my head a few times, watched it again, and formed some stronger opinions. I read the Salon article since then and it is pretty close to the way I interpreted it, with different emphasis.

The pre-credits POV shot of the head moving toward the bed strongly suggests that what follows in the first 2/3 of the film is the elaborate re-imagining of "defeated" Diane's real Hollywood story as "plucky empowered" Betty's fantasy Hollywood story. The last third of the movie is "mostly" reality and is told largely in flashback as indicated by the reappearance of the repossessed piano ashtray when the flashbacks begin in earnest. This is pretty much consistent with Josh's take which I read above.

Diane imbues her fantasy self with an undeniable talent that is recognized by all, and yet she will not let opportunities for success get in the way of her devotion to "her gal" -- the same kind of selfless quality she feels the real Camilla should have showed her. She imbues Camilla's "Rita" fantasy self as being totally dependent on her - even to the extent of having no sense of her own identity - via the amnesia device. The supression of ones own identity via dependence on another is arguably what got Diane to the point she was at in the "real world".

Diane's delusional view of the Hollywood machinery becomes an elaborate conspiracy network that will allow only a "Camilla" to succeed despite all arguments of merit from the fantasy Hollywood that "normally" rewards those scruffy apple-cheeked super-talented out-of-towners fresh off of the bus/plane. She even manages to include an emasculating beat-down for her real-world romantic rival. She populates this fantasy world with characters from her Hollywood experience with whom she has had varying degrees of contact.

Many of the elements of her delusion, the monster/homeless man, the blue box, the search for "Diane", represent connections or even portals out of the delusion to the real world.

Her delusional attempts to rationalize her guilt are ultimately unsuccessful - represented by the encouraging laughter of the old couple becoming an obscene hyena-like threatening mockery, and she kills her self.

Silencio -- Roll credits.

There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but I believe that at its heart, it is intended as a commentary on the Hollywood dream versus the Hollywood reality viewed through an assortment of funhouse mirrors.

Of course, YMMV.

Regards,

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, Mark Pfieffer just mentioned in a Software thread that Robert Forster had the story explained to him as basically exactly what I have been touting as the true narrative all along -

All a death dream, the fantasy right before she dies. Forster said that it all occurs from the moment the bullet leaves the gun to the time she dies, similar to just the instant right before death after having been shot which is what I was saying.

It's not "as she is going to sleep" or "while masturbating". Everything you see is flashback, but the first 2/3rds are pure fantasy that she is putting together in that daydream/longing sort of sense. Throughout this dream her mind is trying to signal her and bring her back to reality.

The jumpy stream-of-consciousness narrative helps indicate this, characters appear once and then dissappear for the rest of the film. Diane has it all twisted to boost herself and explain away any real failure. The club Silencio is reality trying to break into her dream, calling to her if you will, along with other signs in the dream.

The fact that she already finds herself dead in the dream for example.

Also think of the cowboy saying "time to wake up" as her brain saying "come back to reality". Not unlike as you become more aware of reality as you come back to it from a dream while waking, though in her case it's just all in that instant of killing herself.

Then as reality breaks in she starts to go into more traditional memories rather than a dream state. Things are still jumpy and hoge-poge, but more time sequential and honest.

At the very end as her dream state is coming back to meet reality it is visually represented by the old people forcing her back to her body, back to the reality from which she has been running from in her mind.

The masturbation scene simply happened a little before the film begins, before she has gone in to kill herself due to guilt from having her girlfriend killed.

And the more I watch this film the more I love it. It's a very clever and immeasurably watchable film. Simply taken scene by scene even it's highly watchable without the connecting narrative - like a character piece or something, though it does have that narrative in there.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Man, what a great movie. This was one of the few movies lately that everyone said was really good, and when I watched it, I wasn't disappointed. I think one the best things about this type of movie, is that there is more than one way to look at it. After watching it a second time, I tend to lean toward Seth's view above. But, you can take it anyway you want. It speaks to you. Who you are, depends on how you take it. And you can walk away with perhaps a different meaning than what was intended, but still a plausible, satisfying coherence.

 

[Anthony Hom]

Am I missing something, or is this is one of the newest DVDs not to have chapter stops?

I take it this was done on purpose so you have to see the whole film in order and not jump to certain scenes for clarification. What a concept!

 

[Paul W]

This seems to be SOP for David Lynch films. The Elephant Man is the same way.

 

[Joseph Young]

Ken McAlinden,

Really smart, thoughtful analysis of the film. I appreciate the way you put forth some of the concepts explored by MD. I am not so good at expressing myself clearly, which is why I am thankful for the HTF.

Greg Smith:

I think I understand what your take on that is: do you mean to say that in order to argue a point of view, a philosopher or storyteller need use language very carefully in order to keep the concepts 'airtight?' I don't think that philosophers write vaguely in order to prevent being 'found out.' I think that the probing, critical analysis that philosophers do, involves deconstructing literary cliches and shortcuts. You cannot say something simply without conjuring up preconceived notions of a phrase, you you must break the phrasing down into it's basest components in order to avoid having your words misrepresented by a different interpretation.

In other words, I think that philosophers are not being 'sneaky' by using vague language, I think they are instead being 'careful.'

Joseph

 

[Tom Rhea]

I swear I must be the only person on earth who was disappointed in this movie because I understood the plot pretty much upon first watching (it wasn't until I watched it the second time that I figured out that the "Diane" section really isn't in chronological order at all).

The reason I've always watched certain Lynch movies over and over again (aside from the direction/cinematography and performances) is because the mystery never dies (as it did in Twin Peaks when the killer was revealed). I've watched Lost Highway at least 30 times and, although I've read some very good essays about what's going on, don't really see any of the ideas I've read supported by what's going on in the film.

Not so with MD. The minute the cowboy said time to wake up pretty girl, I got a very sick feeling in my stomach, and started praying for the rest of the movie that Lynch did not stoop to using the single most juvenile plot device ever. But he did and the movie is what it is. I'm sure I'll watch it many times, because of the beautiful images and Naomi Watts' performance, but it's never gonna be up there with Eraserhead and Fire Walk with Me and Lost Highway.

 

[Josh Dial]

Not to move terribly off topic, but I must Joseph's retort to the comment on philosophical essays. Being a phil. major, I have read my fair share of philosophical essays, and I don't find the language sneaky or even vague. Rather, most writers use language that is far removed from popular culture and all the preconceived notions that come with being attached to pop culture. In fact, I have rarely read a paper/work in which the point/argument wasn't made completely clear to me. Whether I agree or not is another matter, but the material was always taken to its most basic form, and made easily accesible.

Lynch certainly is attempting to use obscure symbols and themes in order to evoke a sense of confusion in the viewer. Perhaps this is an attempt at forcing a rewatch of the movie, I don't know, but I think it is a genuine attempt at making the viewer think about the symbols and what they mean to oneself.

Though it may sound like a cop-out argument, I think Lynch designed some of the symbols to have multiple interpretations. We're smart people, and Lynch knows this. There are so many ways to read things, that Lynch would rather not beat one way of thinking down our throats. I for one commend the effort.

cheers!

Josh

 

[Joseph Young]

Could you elaborate on that? It's the first time I've heard the phrase 'juvenile plot device' in accordance w/Lynch's work. I'm fascinated, please clarify.

Joseph

 

[Tom Rhea]

I meant the way he tied in the pilot (which ends when Betty and Rita run out of Apt No. 17 when they see the dead body) to the rest of the movie by pretty explicitly (I thought) having the first part be Diane's dream. Perhaps that was his intention for the series all along (although that wouldn't make for a very long series, I think). I was writing short stories using that same idea when I was 9, which is why I think it's a pretty juvenile device ("and then the little boy fell out of bed and realized it was all a dream. The end"). Of course, Lynch handles it very well (certainly better than I ever could) and I really do enjoy the movie (got the dvd first day it came out), just not as much as I would if it were more like Fire Walk with Me. In that movie, the dream world effects the real world, whereas here it's only the real world (Diane's experiences at the end of the movie which precede the dream) which effect the dream world. That's a lot less satisfying to me, especially coming from Lynch.

 

[Joseph Young]

Thanks, Tom. I totally see where you're coming from on that. I feel kind of dense, because upon my first viewing of MD, I was so caught up in the atmosphere that I didn't anticipate very much plot-wise.


While for the most part I think that's true, the contention that the dream/waking world dynamic in Mulholland Drive is one way street is certainly debatable, don't you think?

Thanks for the thoughts. A truly interesting film to say the least.

Joseph

 

[Tom Rhea]

To a certain extent, I think it is. Not nearly as much as I would like it to be, however. The only part of MD that I think there's a lot of room for debate over is who/what is the bum behind Winkie's? Someone on an email discussion list I'm a part of had a theory on that I really like: the bum is Diane's conscience. If you look very closely (and check the credits), the bum is a woman -- a very, dirty, smelly woman, who definitely has some sort of relationship to Diane (she appears in the dream, and let's loose the little people at the end, which definitely effects a change in the real world). Diane is a woman who has done at least one very bad thing and is feeling very guilty over it, so it makes sense that if her conscience is symbolized in the movie it would be quite dirty.

But, assuming that I'm right and that just about everything in the last part of the movie happens out of chronological order and before the dream, other than the bum I don't think there's anything in the dream that isn't explainable by something we see in that last part.

Another thing I realized after the last time I watched it was that if Lynch hadn't edited it out of chronological order, the movie wouldn't be very interesting at all. There would be no mystery about what's happening in the dream. I'm not sure if that's really relevant to anything, though.

 

[Joseph Young]

That was my theory too.

If the film had been edited chronologically, I may have been slightly intrigued, but a large part of me would have thought, "so what?" My guess would be that Lynch, with this film (and most of his other films) does not so much value what he is telling a story about (which I think you summed up pretty well so I won't repeat it), but how the story is being told, at what pace to reveal things to the audience. I realize that some films use stylized narrative as a gimmick to spice up an otherwise lackluster story, but Lynch's sense of mood, comic timing, horrific imagery and beauty all seem to salvage whatever derivative elements exist in the plot itself.

Joseph

 

[Tom Rhea]

I absolutely agree. The one thing to remember when watching a David Lynch movie is that he set out to be a painter first. His early shorts were his attempt to making "moving paintings." I think Blue Velvet is the best example of this so far, but that's probably another thread.

 

[Mike Broadman]

The bum-as-conscience (or, I think more accurately, Diann'es subconscious or a representation of her mind, not necessarily something as specific as "concscience") idea holds with the fact that the guy in the diner who dreamed about him said that he [the monster] is "behind it," or something to that effect. I believe those two men were involved with the murder of Rita/Camille, so, it's basically showing us that Dianne/Betty is responsible for her death by ordering the hit.