criterionforum.org

Apologies on the name. Either way though it seems clear that there is a perfectly good explanation out there and your puzzlement over the blurring seems to amount to wanting to see nudity.

Only to someone unable or unwilling to actually consider the points and questions I was putting out there. Part of it was wondering about whether Harring had misgivings about the full nudity even in the theatrical version and questioning whether the explicit shot was needed in the scene in the first place for artistic reasons. Do those really seem to you like things some sweaty-palmed ogler would want to discuss?
I can take an insult to my intelligence from out of nowhere, but it's a shame to see a conversation derailed into something as dumb as whether I really just want to see Harring fully nude (I don't, particularly, and that wasn't the point, in case that wasn't already clear enough).

I thought the point was supposed to be the difference between how the film would be presented in theaters (very dark and quick, and without the ability for the audience to pause or rewind) vs. on home video, where contrast can be adjusted and the scene can be paused, played in slow motion, or otherwise removed from whatever context it has when the film plays normally.

In any case, the gentlemanly thing to do when this scene arrives is to politely put down your head and think of long-gone weekends at grandma's until the panting stops, so how Criterion presents it on video is of no particular importance.

swo17 wrote:I thought the point was supposed to be the difference between how the film would be presented in theaters (very dark and quick, and without the ability for the audience to pause or rewind) vs. on home video, where contrast can be adjusted and the scene can be paused, played in slow motion, or otherwise removed from whatever context it has when the film plays normally.

Yes, the point I was trying to make. Lynch similarly censored Wild at Heart if it makes any difference, albeit for different reasons, but it's not without precedent.

For a completely different reason, as far as I understand it: that was the only way to keep the scene in question and not get an X rating. And in that case the U.S. theatrical version matched the home video releases, with all being censored due to the MPAA.
In the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems like the motivation for the blurring was due to Harring's wishes and Lynch wanting to honor their agreement about the home video release, and not a general unwillingness on Lynch's part to have a full-frontal scene be included on a home video release, which could be paused etc. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had the full frontal shots left uncensored for the releases of Blue Velvet, for example. And in that case, Rossellini's exposure was vital to the film, as she well understood. As shocking and even painful to watch as it was, that's part and parcel of the reason to keep it all intact, and it wouldn't have been the same film if it had been shot or edited differently or changed for the home video release.
The nude scene in question from Mulholland Dr. seems to function in a very different way than that, though, and again I don't take issue with Harring and Lynch's wishes about it. But it would perhaps be worth revisiting the appearance of the blurring for the Criterion release to see if it could better match Lynch's stated intention of having it be done so that it's virtually invisible rather than standing out.

Sorry to disrupt the current nudity conversation for a moment, but I've been reading through this thread slightly taken aback by the idea that this release is anything less than a major one (especially for a forum that's consistently voted it in second place as the top film of its decade in the last two cycles of our decade list project). I don't recall having seen any particular interviews at all about this film, although I admit that I've only ever had the UK DVD with just its sheet of clues to watch out for. Interviews with the actors and director and the inclusion of on set footage sounds as if it will provide me with more information on the making of the film than I have ever had even if it might involve more remisicences than interpretations! Specific insight on the film's themes will likely be difficult to come by, but then did anyone really, seriously expect that there would be a scholarly commentary track and Lynch explaining the intent behind every image scene by scene on here? I'm not even expecting chapter breaks on the disc, so even that would be welcome if it happened!

The *more!* has been added and unfortunately no shorts.

This looks like the final list...
DIRECTOR-APPROVED EDITION:

>New, restored 4K digital transfer, supervised by director David Lynch and director of photography Peter Deming, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray
>New interviews with Lynch; Deming; actors Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux, and Laura Harring; composer Angelo Badalamenti; production designer Jack Fisk; and casting director Johanna Ray
>On-set footage
>Deleted scene
>Trailer
>PLUS: A booklet featuring an interview with Lynch from the 2005 edition of filmmaker and writer Chris Rodley’s book Lynch on Lynch

So "more" was just a deleted scene?!?! Disappointing.

I imagine the "deleted scene" will be the hospital scene with Robert Forster and Brent Briscoe...

Spoiler

...in which they discuss the doctor who won't stop laughing at the critical condition the limo driver is in.

As I recall, this was the only extended unique sequence shot for the TV pilot that did not end up in the theatrical film in some fashion.

The discouraging thing is that the pilot that has been floating around now is the one the Lynch cut down under pressure from the network, which they ended up rejecting anyway. I've read about a scene involving a small boy with unnaturally bright blue eyes (like Dune??) with metal crutches that was supposed to be a powerful image. Too bad that's never turned up.

I'm disappointed that there isn't more for the extras (more deleted scenes from the pilot would have been great), but then again, with Lynch's involvement, this is probably the best it could ever be. Like with their release of Eraserhead, it seems like Criterion has made the most by including new interviews with basically everyone crucial to the film's existence, although I do wish Mulholland Dr. had more archival features similar to the ones Criterion included for Eraserhead (is this the case for the "On-set Footage"?).

And this was supposed to be a "big" release. I kind of wish Arrow were putting this out instead.

swo17 wrote:And this was supposed to be a "big" release. I kind of wish Arrow were putting this out instead.

I'm sure Lynch would tie Arrow's hands as well.

StudioCanal has the UK rights, so an Arrow release isn't happening with or without Lynch's involvement.

It also adds an interview with production designer Jack Fisk

As usual, it seems like we get better mores when there's no "more"s listed. That said, I wonder where the other Lynch shorts are going to end up? They must have some other Lynch film(s) planned at this point to forgo putting Dumbland, etc here (Elephant Man? Inland Empire? Blue Velvet re-release?). I won't complain until I see the final product - as things still change - and like Eraserhead, major supplements were given less than exciting titles in the specs (the "on set footage" had a much larger description in the previous iteration of the supplements list).

Given that Fisk is one of Lynch's oldest friends and longest-term collaborators, I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at an interview with him.

Minkin wrote:That said, I wonder where the other Lynch shorts are going to end up? They must have some other Lynch film(s) planned at this point to forgo putting Dumbland, etc here (Elephant Man? Inland Empire? Blue Velvet re-release?).

The Elephant Man is with Warner via Paramount, so forget about that one. I can see Criterion releasing both Lost Highway and Inland Empire (the former, like Mulholland Dr., is with Universal, and Lynch's Absurda should still have the rights to the latter).

If this pans out, I'd expect the shorts to end up with Inland Empire.

MichaelB wrote:Given that Fisk is one of Lynch's oldest friends and longest-term collaborators, I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at an interview with him.

And a worthwhile contributor to the Malick discs.

Self wrote:Beaver

False advertising -- doesn't resolve the nudity question at all.

I can't believe Lynch is still insisting on the no chapter stops thing. I presume bookmarking still works on the Blu-ray?

Eraserhead had book marking disabled if I remember correctly, so I wouldn't count on it here as well.

If you shut off your Blu-ray player, would it ask you to resume where you left off?

What's with the reframing on the eighth cap in the review (of Camilla Rhodes and back-up singers)? Gary doesn't really mention it beyond a vague reference to "framing differences," unless I'm missing something. Is there any official word on Lynch making changes? Could this have to do with the fact that the film was reframed after being reworked from a TV pilot to a theatrical film (although I don't see how that would have impacted this difference)?

I have NO intention of starting a debate about Lynch being a revisionist or anything like that (not a fan of those arguments). Just curious if anybody has any info about this.