criterionforum.org

Just an aside: I reckon I'm the only forum member that doesn't like Mulholland Drive.

It was the first thing of Lynch's I'd ever seen and I hated it. I've completely come around on it since.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:It was the first thing of Lynch's I'd ever seen and I hated it. I've completely come around on it since.

The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.

oldsheperd wrote:The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.

This is why we can't have nice things.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

oldsheperd wrote:The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Eh? Sorry. I'm not a prude, but it just didn't work for me. The film was clipping along just fine for me until then. It just seemed a bit too self-indulgent and bordering on exploitation. I know a lot of critics and viewers felt it was one of the best love-making scenes ever, but for me it made me think Lynch was kind of being dirty and classless. I guess it doesn't help that I've never been a big fan of girl on girl porn.

Lynch actually edited the scene itself by darkening it. Because of this the notion the that Lynch was unaware of what he was doing strikes me personally as disingenuous. Yes there is a lesbian sex scene in Mulholland Dr. but that doesn't equate to it being exploitative in my opinion. From what I personally know about Lynch and his relation to the LGBT community he's actually very well liked, especially by the trans community.

Big Ben wrote:Lynch actually edited the scene itself by darkening it. Because of this the notion the that Lynch was unaware of what he was doing strikes me personally as disingenuous. Yes there is a lesbian sex scene in Mulholland Dr. but that doesn't equate to it being exploitative in my opinion. From what I personally know about Lynch and his relation to the LGBT community he's actually very well liked, especially by the trans community.

I'm not accusing Lynch of actually exploiting lesbianism at all. My interpretation was that it was bordering on exploitation as a result of its gratuity and self-indulgence. Up to Mulholland Drive, I had and have, liked all of Lynch's films immensely especially in regards to his visual aesthetic and only show the sexual and grotesque in relation to the narrative and with some restraint. It was just a bridge too far for me as, I felt, it killed the enjoyment of what I typically find fascinating with Lynch: the visuals and opaque qualities of his narratives. I also felt that Lynch pulled the mask off of this one with the final half hour or so. It felt to me like Lynch didn't trust his audience so he felt the need to explain everything to his audience. Perhaps that was either, subliminally or not, Lynch's way of trying to become more reasonable with viewers after the critical failures of FWWM and Lost Highway which are two of his most incomprehensible, puzzling works. As a matter of fact with Criterion releasing FWWM, I'm hoping they release Lost Highway which is Lynch's most underrated yet probably one of his best films.

My interpretation was that it was bordering on exploitation as a result of its gratuity and self-indulgence.

Perhaps that was the intent? An alternate interpretation one could have is that Mulholland Drive (and its alter ego, Hollywood) is a gratuitous and self indulgent environment.

Perhaps that is an uncomfortable, cheap, or disappointing environment/feeling for one to experience, but that's the character of the setting, and its a different matter than the competence of the artist.

in fact, given your above perspective, that scene could be considered a success.

Just a thought to consider.

What was gratuitous about the sex scene? I don't remember there being any actual sex, just some kissing and fondling, and gentle at that. It's far less explicit or gratuitous than the sex scenes in Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart. Or to go outside Lynch, it stops far short of Bound and Blue is the Warmest Colour.

It seems like the emotions of that moment were the point of the sex scene anyway, that realization that the two women love each other without knowing why and without having had a gay experience before (as far as they know, anyway). It's a moment charged with emotion rather than empty prurience, indeed charged with an emotion key to understanding what follows.

Count me as someone who’s also always wondered what the hell the fuss is all about with regard to the sex scene in this film. It neither offends nor exploits, and is a key moment in establishing a closer and somewhat uncomfortable bond between those two characters, considering some of what comes after, as you mentioned at the end of your post, Sausage.

Its definitely meant to be a sexual fantasy and play that way to a certain extent, but then the film as a whole is a fantasy of a world where desires arise naturally and without feeling forced or needing to really work at it, compared to the bitter reality of forcing the issue until still being left entirely abandoned.

Spoiler

Compare the way that the dangerously exotic amnesiac Rita is the instigator of the sex scene, with Betty as the ultimate good-hearted innocent being led into all of these other mysterious worlds, to its partner 'unerotic' sex scene in Diane's apartment with Diane being the pushier more dominant and 'on top' character (yet more 'desperate' and brittle seeming for all of her forceful behaviour), whilst Camilla is passive and distant, already gone from the relationship in spirit if not yet in body.

I had always assumed that

Spoiler

1) Laura Herring's character(s) was a metaphor for Hollywood's seduction and the "sex" scene was catalyst for the "loss" of Naomi Watts' character(s) American innocence, and 2) the scene also suggests a consummation, with the loss of individual psychological boundaries and physical merging of the characters

To be specific, there are three sex scenes in the film: one between the two leads which is a fantasy, one between the two leads which isn't, and that incredibly sad moment of "Diane" masturbating. The approach Lynch takes with each of the scenes is to create a contrast so the viewer can better reflect on what's really going on with "Betty"/"Diane". That one or more scenes might be perceived as gratuitous fits perfectly with what the film is trying to say.

This reminds me that in Twin Peaks: The Return, sex scenes are used in a similar way:

Spoiler

Janey-E having sex with "Dougie" is comical and sweet in a way that suggests a fantasy version whereas the coupling of Cooper and Diane (or is is it "Richard" and "Linda") is disturbing and frustrating in a way that is far less ideal.

Tried to give it a second go last night since it's on the Netflix. Got bored and decided to watch Enigma of Kasper Hauser instead. I understand where these comments are coming from, but maybe it's because I don't feel invested in the characters. I do, however, feel for the Diane character during the self-stimulation scene and the party when she is humiliated so I'm not the total monster that I appear to be.

Mr Sausage wrote:What was gratuitous about the sex scene? I don't remember there being any actual sex, just some kissing and fondling, and gentle at that. It's far less explicit or gratuitous than the sex scenes in Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart. Or to go outside Lynch, it stops far short of Bound and Blue is the Warmest Colour.

It seems like the emotions of that moment were the point of the sex scene anyway, that realization that the two women love each other without knowing why and without having had a gay experience before (as far as they know, anyway). It's a moment charged with emotion rather than empty prurience, indeed charged with an emotion key to understanding what follows.

I've always had issues, personally, depending on the tone of the film, with violence or sex in films. I'm not particularly fond of the sex scenes in Blue Velvet or Wild at Heart either, but they're in keeping with the tone of the overall film, and in my mind not as gratuitous, and in BV's case more disturbing. In addition, the scenes in those two films are much more brief. Lynch gives the viewer enough info to say, "I got the point." He lingers to far in my opinion. I would have got the message with a shorter scene.

I remember when this movie came out and I would tell people that I really liked it, this was commonly greeted with a wink wink nudge nudge, how hott were those sex scenes response that I grew to resent. So I kind of see where you're coming from.

swo17 wrote:I remember when this movie came out and I would tell people that I really liked it, this was commonly greeted with a wink wink nudge nudge, how hott were those sex scenes response that I grew to resent. So I kind of see where you're coming from.

Well maybe that's what Lynch's intention was, to confront the idea of a female same sex couple as more than just a male fantasy, but an actual bond of love between two people. For me anyway, if that's what he was going for, then it backfired by going just a bit too far.

What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.

Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.

I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.

Everyone keep your mouths and nipples inside the vehicle while it is in motion

oldsheperd wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.

I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.

No one kissed anyone's nipples in that scene. 90% is closeups of kissing, with some brief fondling. The actual sex is elided by a cut from them kissing to (I think) a closeup of them holding hands in bed. Your "gratuitous" is some foreplay. Granted, we'll have different bars, but yours seems puzzlingly low. Again, I don't wonder if how the scene felt is amplifying your memory of how it actually is. It is a very erotic scene, but it is not graphic.

I don't think it's fair to call that scene gratuitous when it's nowhere near as graphic as the masturbation after it, which is as far from erotic as possible. Seems clear Lynch is drawing a distinction between (heightened fantasy) love and impure, angry lust. Both involve the same naked body, but the way they feel is totally different.

Mr Sausage wrote:

oldsheperd wrote:

Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.

I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.

No one kissed anyone's nipples in that scene. 90% is closeups of kissing, with some brief fondling. The actual sex is elided by a cut from them kissing to (I think) a closeup of them holding hands in bed. Your "gratuitous" is some foreplay. Granted, we'll have different bars, but yours is oddly low. Again, I don't wonder if how the scene felt is amplifying your memory of how it actually is. It is a very erotic scene, but it is not graphic.

I don't know. I guess I have a low bar. There's two definitions to gratuitous though. I'm also looking at "gratuitous" in terms of length and I think the scene plays on a bit too long. Like I said, just my opinion. Keep in mind I'm only going off of my one time watching it 15 years ago.
Like I said, I did try and watch the film last night and I just found it rather dull. I also just don't find the film all that fascinating as compared to say, FWWM or Lost Highway. Whereas I found Mulholland Drive's plot to be a bit too straight, I feel that LH and FWWM's plots have enough opaqueness to keep me engaged as a participant. That's one of the things I always found most enjoyable about Lynch's work is that the viewer is left to untangle the plots and symbolism.
I think, being a long time board member, that my tastes are just different from most o. For example, my rant, oh say, 8 years ago about how much I hate James L. Brooks and how Broadcast News sucks. I also consider the Big Chill to be indulging in hippe era self-exceptionalism. And who could forget when I said that Jim Jarmusch(whom I like) films are just popular because talking about him is more likely to get you laid at a hipster party.

soundchaser wrote:I don't think it's fair to call that scene gratuitous when it's nowhere near as graphic as the masturbation after it, which is as far from erotic as possible. Seems clear Lynch is drawing a distinction between (heightened fantasy) love and impure, angry lust. Both involve the same naked body, but the way they feel is totally different.

As I mentioned before, I totally got the self-stimulation part. It was disturbing and sad.

oldshepard wrote:I'm also looking at "gratuitous" in terms of length and I think the scene plays on a bit too long. Like I said, just my opinion. Keep in mind I'm only going off of my one time watching it 15 years ago.

I can understand that. It's definitely two or three minutes long; and while I think the length is from the tentative and exploratory nature of the encounter and therefore necessary, I fully understand someone who's not into it feeling like they want it over and done with already.