How about the tv pilot version on there as an extra? Put the bootleggers out of business.
Stuart Davis' theory:
This is a profoundly significant movie. The entire film is one moment as it occurs in the Bardo, and what we view is the history and karma of one soul burned away by radiating agents as it is 'dunked' in between lives. The purification is conducted through the identity (seemingly) being fractured / parsed into different characters which are then experienced as "others", and through their dramatic inter-action the necessary spiritual cleansing is achieved. However, as the figures are aspects of one self, compound parts of a whole, the film is not only an expert portrayal of the enigmatic process of transfiguration, but a brilliant metaphor for what the Absolute experiences in the moment-to-moment unfolding of all phenomena, AKA: the Universe. The irony is, since film is a medium which requires sequence, the director must stretch out what is actually an instant (or an atemporal 'event') to make the work accommodate human faculties. The result- Mulholland Drive- is an almost unparalleled achievement in cinema, and required viewing for any dedicated practioner. Beyond being one of the great mandalas of the 20th century, Mulholland is a sobering reminder that without serious, lifelong meditation practice our soul will just pass out at death, forfeiting our usefulness to all beings / caving on our vow to Love.
I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. David Lynch hates chapter stops, so he surely isn't going to go for audio commentaries and all sorts of extras. If they do release one, it will be against his wishes.
Forget an SE for Mulholland Drive, I want Lost Highway.
And saying things like "i would love to meet the guys who are responsible for the DVD releases of universal so i can smack them in the face.who are these guys god damn it?!!!!" and "release a SE already for fuck sake." probably does nothing but make the board look like its inhabited by fifth graders.
Lynch may not do commentaries and may dislike chapter stops (although that hasn't stoped chapter stops from being included on most DVDs of his films), but he helped out with the MGM special editions of both BLUE VELVET and WILD AT HEART, and through his own company released a special edition of ERASERHEAD, so this 'Lynch hates special editions' nonsense is just that- nonsense.
Lynch also wanted to release the deleted scenes from TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME, and I have it on good authority that he was willing to put together a "director's cut" of DUNE, but Universal didn't want to pay for his services, so they just went ahead and released the TV cut remastered in anamorphic widescreen instead. One hell of a missed oppurtunity, if you ask me...
That's what I find weird about his attitude towards commentaries. In my mind, the great interview that was on the Eraserhead DVD was like a commentary track that just happened to have video. I can understand/appreciate why he feels like a magician protecting his secrets (like how the baby effect was accomplished) but just talk about something else during those scenes.
David Lynch doesn't want the TV pilot version released to DVD which is a shame. I would love to see it and have a fetaurette on how the pilot changed when it was made into a film and what scenes were dropped. I did come across a web site that looked at the TV pilot.
I think it's more a case of he doesn't want to explain his movies. The Eraserhead interview, while long and full of stories does nothing to explain the movie itself, as far as his intent on what it means. the less you know about a Lynch film, the better they tend to be anyways.
I'd buy updated Mulholland Drive and propper Lost highway in a second. PArticuarly LH, which is a great film. Maybe we'll see them when "Inland Empire" (if it's even still called that) comes out.
I agree 100% but that's what I mean- just avoid any kind of discussion on those topics and just talk about the rest. Either way, I'm glad that he has any kind of participation on his discs.
I saw Lost Highway in a theater again last year and when I was leaving I heard someone 'explaining' the movie to his girlfriend/wife and I didn't get why anyone would want that movie explained (especially when the guy was just some dumb yuppie
). I'd rather have my own wrong idea about it than let someone else tell me what it's about.
Thanks for the link Percebe....I ran the first part of that item through Babel Fish:
"(Acknowledgment: This article if divides in two parts: in the first one, I will approach the aspects technician and narrative of City of the Dreams; e in second - that it must be chore preferential only for who already attended the film -, I will say a little on the mysteries presented for history.) Why the people prefer to condemn what they do not understand? At the time where Magnólia was launched, she has about three years, I remember the interminable quarrels perfectly on famous ' the rain of sapos ' that occurred in the third act of the tram: while some people tried to little deciphering the meaning of that apparent insanity, others simply friction the film of Paul Thomas Anderson as ' pretensiosa bobagem ', denying the spotless logic and the wealth of symbolisms of its script (to read the analysis that I wrote on this production, click here). Unhappyly, the same lack of understanding comes surrounding City of the Dreams, probably the best work of the career of David Lynch. At least, it is what I could perceive when I attended this magnificent film for the second time (the first fôra in a session for critics, that rare is disclosed during the projection): during the twenty final minutes of history, when the things start to be a little less clear, good part of the public started to laugh and to weave commentaries of disapproval in high voice - and when the lights if had finally lit, even though vaias they could have been heard (something that, for that they had said me, comes if repeating in other sessions)."