criterionforum.org

Black Hat wrote:What am I missing about this film? Is it the hot chicks? Cause yeah it definitely rates high there.

Since you asked, yes. Want to join our society?

Black Hat wrote:Meh, it's not even close to being the best Lynch film.

I'd been waiting years for Lynch to make a film as brilliant as Eraserhead. He got close with Lost Highway but Mulholland Drive was even better and it improved even more on repeated viewings. It's an absolute masterpiece and even more remarkable considering he "retro-fitted" the plot.
Why do you think Marienbad and Celine & Julie are better? They're both fine films but both very different to Mulholland Drive and not as good in my opinion.

I also disagree with the notion that Marienbad and C&J are better films than Mulholland Drive. I find Marienbad worthwhile but didn't make it past the first 90 minutes or so of the Rivette; on the other hand, I find MD to be Lynch's best film yet and the best American film made from 2000 to 2010 (and as a gay man, I don't even care about the "hot chicks" though I find the lesbian lovescene moving, to the extent that I didn't even realise until my third viewing that Rita never replies to Diane's "I love you").

Finch, you might want to give C&J a try again someday as the best stuff happens after the first hour once the house plot really gets going. Mulholland Drive though is definitely a masterpiece in it's own right (and I'm happy to see it all over the new S&S poll). And Inland Empire's not too shabby either.

Spoiler

One thing I love about all three of these films is how they aren't either/or with regard to their various story worlds but both/and. And the step from dual interpenetrating realities in Mulholland to multiple interpenetrating realities in Inland is pretty remarkable.

Re Warren Oates' spoiler: Yes, it annoys me that people think his films hinge on some arbitrary 'real or not?' gimmick.

Robin Davies wrote:I'd been waiting years for Lynch to make a film as brilliant as Eraserhead. He got close with Lost Highway but Mulholland Drive was even better and it improved even more on repeated viewings. It's an absolute masterpiece and even more remarkable considering he "retro-fitted" the plot.
Why do you think Marienbad and Celine & Julie are better? They're both fine films but both very different to Mulholland Drive and not as good in my opinion.

I'd disagree with you there, I liked Eraser, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway much better. They are different films but, I felt parts of Mulholland Drive were knocked off of both films. The Celine, Julie relationship and the play from Marienbad to name two off the top of my head.

My problem with Mulholland Drive is that it came across to me as artificial in spots, forced even, where as with C&J and Marienbad, as unique as both films are it all felt natural. I felt that I was inside those worlds, where as with Mulholland Drive I was firmly outside of it, purposefully for who knows what reason. To me films the genius of films in this style is their ability to allow one inside the film. Letting the emotions, images and sounds touch you as opposed to the traditional way of the narrative.

Full disclosure, it has been a number of years since I've seen the film, once in theater, once at home. Perhaps I would benefit from seeing it again as my opinion has softened quite a bit after my initial viewing where I had an outright, bordering on ugly, hatred of it.

Black Hat wrote:Perhaps I would benefit from seeing it again as my opinion has softened quite a bit after my initial viewing where I had an outright, bordering on ugly, hatred of it.

I sort of had the same thing: I genuinely wanted to hate this film beforehand, for various reasons, and even after seeing it I tried hard to convince myself that it wasn't any good - but even without a rewatch I've since had to succumb to the fact that it is indeed a masterpiece. (Marienbad btw was the other way around for me - it's probably my least favorite Resnais, although I might need to revisit that one too)

I don't know what scene is referred to in the first post of this thread, but for me the scene that actually made me lose a couple of night's sleep - and quite possibly the scariest scene I've ever seen in any film is

Spoiler

the first scene in Winkies, where the guy says something like "I don't ever want to see that face when I'm awake". I could fucking well say the same thing about that guy's face - so unbelievably creepy.

Even the moment of comic relief at the end of that scene couldn't erase that feeling of genuine terror.

Fischler does have a magnificent mug, doesn't he? Like a Lovecraft-Bogart lovechild

tarpilot wrote:Fischler does have a magnificent mug, doesn't he? Like a Lovecraft-Bogart lovechild

Well described! I hope it's not just his face that freaks me out though - I can see myself watching Mad Men through my fingers lest he jump out from behind some innocuous-looking garbage dumpster

Seriously though, right now I can't think of anything to rival that scene in hair-raisingness - but Lynch kinda drops the ball for me by

Spoiler

actually showing the thing - although I'm sure he had a good reason to do that

Black Hat wrote: My problem with Mulholland Drive is that it came across to me as artificial in spots, forced even, where as with C&J and Marienbad, as unique as both films are it all felt natural. I felt that I was inside those worlds, where as with Mulholland Drive I was firmly outside of it, purposefully for who knows what reason.

Interesting. Comparing Blue Velvet with Mulholland Drive I feel the exact opposite. I'm always baffled at the common view that Blue Velvet is Lynch's masterpiece and everything after that is somehow a pale shadow or "knock-off" of it. I've seen Blue Velvet many times and, though it has some powerful imagery, I find much of the dialogue so stilted and the heroes so bland and insipid (and Sandy's dream and that silly fake robin so embarrassing) that I couldn't get fully "inside the film" to use your apposite phrase. In subsequent films I felt Lynch was getting much tighter control of his material and his dialogue. Lost Highway was the first one since Eraserhead where I really felt he was firing on all cylinders again. Mulholland Drive used a similar plot but was even better and neither film feels forced to me - every scene feels absolutely right and totally involving. Scene after scene is just bursting with the sort of eerie beauty that only Lynch can provide - the opening car ride, "Rita's" stumble down the hill, the horror behind Winkies, Adam Kesher vs Angelo and the espresso, the audition scene, the Club Silencio scene, and - perhaps my favourite - the confrontation between Adam Kesher and The Cowboy which is so perfectly balanced on the knife-edge between humour and horror that it doesn't diminish either emotion.
Though Lynch is an absolute master at portraying weirdness and horror (and the strange borderland where weirdness and horror combine with beauty or humour to evoke feelings that are simply beyond words) he doesn't seem very adept at portraying goodness. Unless he can imbue a character with amusing quirks (e.g. Dale Cooper) we get bland characters like Jeffrey and Sandy or James Hurley and Sheriff Truman, and hokey imagery like angels and good fairies. Maybe one of the reasons I like Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive so much is because they are so relentlessly dark. True, the lady in the radiator could be seen as a force of goodness but she herself seems pretty rancid and disturbing. The epiphany at the end of INLAND EMPIRE just about works but perhaps that's because the plot is incomprehensible and one can respond purely emotionally to the imagery of release and reconciliation.

Robin Davies wrote:...Unless he can imbue a character with amusing quirks (e.g. Dale Cooper) we get bland characters like Jeffrey...

While some of the characters you mentioned do drift towards one dimensional archetypes (although I believe they serve an important purpose in their respective films - as a sort of "neutral" at the center of the chaotic darkness), Jeffrey from BLUE VELVET strikes me as a fully-formed character. The entire film hinges on his desire to look behind the doors he knows he should leave closed. He is affable in a non-threatening way and yet quick to indulge in voyeurism and rough sex. He professes not to understand the evil he uncovers, but almost seems willing to bathe himself in it. If the "normal" world Jeffery returns to at the film's end seems not quite right (fake robins and all), it's because he still carries the darkness inside him.

Betty in MULHOLLAND DRIVE is a very similar character to Jeffrey, but we are afforded both sides of her personality as almost separate entities. The darkness that drove Jeffrey can be seen in Betty even as she attempts to whitewash the experience we are witnessing. But by the final third of the film, the darkness/self-loathing is fully revealed.

Roger Ryan wrote:

Robin Davies wrote:...Unless he can imbue a character with amusing quirks (e.g. Dale Cooper) we get bland characters like Jeffrey...

While some of the characters you mentioned do drift towards one dimensional archetypes (although I believe they serve an important purpose in their respective films - as a sort of "neutral" at the center of the chaotic darkness), Jeffrey from BLUE VELVET strikes me as a fully-formed character. The entire film hinges on his desire to look behind the doors he knows he should leave closed. He is affable in a non-threatening way and yet quick to indulge in voyeurism and rough sex. He professes not to understand the evil he uncovers, but almost seems willing to bathe himself in it. If the "normal" world Jeffery returns to at the film's end seems not quite right (fake robins and all), it's because he still carries the darkness inside him.

Betty in MULHOLLAND DRIVE is a very similar character to Jeffrey, but we are afforded both sides of her personality as almost separate entities. The darkness that drove Jeffrey can be seen in Betty even as she attempts to whitewash the experience we are witnessing. But by the final third of the film, the darkness/self-loathing is fully revealed.

Good points, but I still find the whole black-and-white approach to good and evil in Blue Velvet rather simplistic even if both elements are present in Jeffrey.
Another of the fascinating things about Mulholland Drive is that the central character of Diane is a very unusual movie protagonist. Not a heroine, not a villain, not someone striving to overcome obstacles to reach a goal or find some kind of redemption - just a rather sad loser with little talent but a sense of entitlement to a "celebrity" lifestyle. Rather appropriate in these times when a lot of young people seem to want to be famous for being famous.

Robin Davies wrote:Another of the fascinating things about Mulholland Drive is that the central character of Diane is a very unusual movie protagonist. Not a heroine, not a villain, not someone striving to overcome obstacles to reach a goal or find some kind of redemption - just a rather sad loser with little talent but a sense of entitlement to a "celebrity" lifestyle. Rather appropriate in these times when a lot of young people seem to want to be famous for being famous.

I definitely did not see this movie any of the half a dozen times I've run it. A surprisingly unsympathetic outlier take on the protagonist herself and a bit of a misguided interpretation of the film as a whole. Mulholland Drive isn't some Nolanesque puzzle narrative to be solved, but a multi-dimensional tragedy about the loss of innocence and its reverberations across the boundaries of two different yet inextricably interrelated worlds. (And both Betty/Diane seem to me to have clear, concrete goals in each of their respective stories.)

Robin wrote:Good points, but I still find the whole black-and-white approach to good and evil in Blue Velvet rather simplistic even if both elements are present in Jeffrey.

Er, Lynch's aesthetic is built around the violent clash between extremes: between an almost parodistic 50's home-spun atmosphere and an equally outrageous villainy; between love as shining purity and love as degrading abuse; between floating, soft music and shattering noise. It's all about violent clashes and sudden juxtapositions, and the way that people can become pulled between the two: like how Dorothy can both hate and enjoy the abuse she suffers, or how Jeffrey wants both to live out a 50's young-love ideal and to engage in sado-masochistic sex. Even Frank Booth is caught between a genuine and deeply felt love for Dorothy and his all-consuming desire to abuse and destroy.

There is nothing about this that is simplistic or, indeed, simplistically felt on Lynch's part. It's a very complex state Lynch is creating. It's not merely naive since in fact naivety is only one part of the clash Lynch is exploring.

warren oates wrote:

Robin Davies wrote:Another of the fascinating things about Mulholland Drive is that the central character of Diane is a very unusual movie protagonist. Not a heroine, not a villain, not someone striving to overcome obstacles to reach a goal or find some kind of redemption - just a rather sad loser with little talent but a sense of entitlement to a "celebrity" lifestyle. Rather appropriate in these times when a lot of young people seem to want to be famous for being famous.

I definitely did not see this movie any of the half a dozen times I've run it. A surprisingly unsympathetic outlier take on the protagonist herself and a bit of a misguided interpretation of the film as a whole. Mulholland Drive isn't some Nolanesque puzzle narrative to be solved, but a multi-dimensional tragedy about the loss of innocence and its reverberations across the boundaries of two different yet inextricably interrelated worlds. (And both Betty/Diane seem to me to have clear, concrete goals in each of their respective stories.)

My comment was based on the conventional interpretation that the first three-quarters is a dream (created by Diane to recast her life in a better way) and the last quarter is reality. Of course other interpretations are possible but I don't think they fit so well.

Yeah, but not only is this "all a dream" (from only one POV of one of the protagonists') interpretation the least interesting one, but based on the evidence in the work itself and in many of Lynch's other films (the duality of Leland/Bob in FWWM, the matter of fact schizoid duality of the protags in Lost Highway, the subsequent multidimensional reality slippages in Inland Empire), it's not nearly as complex or beautiful as the film demands. It's one thing to dislike the film, but to kind of willfully underestimate its intentions and achievements so as to dismiss it more easily, well, that's just unfortunate. What I'm trying to say is that, Lynch isn't a conventional director and so his unconventional choice for a few decades now has been to tell prismatic stories about multiple worlds, multiple dimensions, where one storyworld may, from one point of view, be something like the happy wish fulfillment gloss on the dark nightmare reality of the other, but neither one has primacy. Even more so, like Sausage says so nicely above, the films are simultaneously about the Norman Rocwkell beauty of the bird in the bush and of the close-up doubletake of the bug in its mouth.

warren oates wrote: It's one thing to dislike the film, but to kind of willfully underestimate its intentions and achievements so as to dismiss it more easily, well, that's just unfortunate.

What are you talking about? I don't "dislike the film" - it's one of my ten all-time favourites and Lynch is one of my top five directors!
This discussion only started because I was defending Mulholland Drive against the common charge that it's just a knock-off of Lynch's earlier work, in particular the film which is commonly seen as his masterpiece, Blue Velvet.
"Wilfully underestimate its intentions"? Given Lynch's understandable reluctance to describe his intentions I don't see your interpretation has any more validity than the dream one. I don't think the dream interpretation diminishes the complexity and beauty of the film one iota.

Mr Sausage wrote:

Robin wrote:Good points, but I still find the whole black-and-white approach to good and evil in Blue Velvet rather simplistic even if both elements are present in Jeffrey.

Er, Lynch's aesthetic is built around the violent clash between extremes: between an almost parodistic 50's home-spun atmosphere and an equally outrageous villainy; between love as shining purity and love as degrading abuse; between floating, soft music and shattering noise. It's all about violent clashes and sudden juxtapositions, and the way that people can become pulled between the two: like how Dorothy can both hate and enjoy the abuse she suffers, or how Jeffrey wants both to live out a 50's young-love ideal and to engage in sado-masochistic sex. Even Frank Booth is caught between a genuine and deeply felt love for Dorothy and his all-consuming desire to abuse and destroy.

There is nothing about this that is simplistic or, indeed, simplistically felt on Lynch's part. It's a very complex state Lynch is creating. It's not merely naive since in fact naivety is only one part of the clash Lynch is exploring.

Maybe "simplistic" was the wrong word. Again, I didn't come here really to criticise Blue Velvet. I like the film, but I just don't agree with the conventional view that it's his masterpiece and subsequent films are just pale imitations of it. To my taste his later films are much more assured and powerful.

Robin Davies wrote:

warren oates wrote: It's one thing to dislike the film, but to kind of willfully underestimate its intentions and achievements so as to dismiss it more easily, well, that's just unfortunate.

What are you talking about? I don't "dislike the film" - it's one of my ten all-time favourites and Lynch is one of my top five directors!
This discussion only started because I was defending Mulholland Drive against the common charge that it's just a knock-off of Lynch's earlier work, in particular the film which is commonly seen as his masterpiece, Blue Velvet.
"Wilfully underestimate its intentions"? Given Lynch's understandable reluctance to describe his intentions I don't see your interpretation has any more validity than the dream one. I don't think the dream interpretation diminishes the complexity and beauty of the film one iota.

Apologies. I guess I didn't read far enough back in the thread to get that you were intending to praise the film. I suppose the tone of some of your appreciation feels strange to me. I find it hard to see where you're coming from exactly if Mulholland Drive is a good film or a better one than Blue Velvet because, say, Diane is such a clearly drawn no-talent loser would-be sublebrity. That's not the character I see in the film at all. Just like the idea of a single solvable equation of the film where such-and-such is all-real and such-and-such is all-dream seems to diminish most of the mystery and beauty of the film.

Robin Davies wrote:'s just a knock-off of Lynch's earlier work, in particular the film which is commonly seen as his masterpiece, Blue Velvet.

To be clear regarding my earlier post, I felt it was a knock off of C&J and Marienbad. I have more to say but, as I have Mulholland Drive cued up, ready to go, it's wise that I refresh myself and hold off for now.

warren oates wrote:

Robin Davies wrote:

warren oates wrote: It's one thing to dislike the film, but to kind of willfully underestimate its intentions and achievements so as to dismiss it more easily, well, that's just unfortunate.

What are you talking about? I don't "dislike the film" - it's one of my ten all-time favourites and Lynch is one of my top five directors!
This discussion only started because I was defending Mulholland Drive against the common charge that it's just a knock-off of Lynch's earlier work, in particular the film which is commonly seen as his masterpiece, Blue Velvet.
"Wilfully underestimate its intentions"? Given Lynch's understandable reluctance to describe his intentions I don't see your interpretation has any more validity than the dream one. I don't think the dream interpretation diminishes the complexity and beauty of the film one iota.

Apologies. I guess I didn't read far enough back in the thread to get that you were intending to praise the film. I suppose the tone of some of your appreciation feels strange to me. I find it hard to see where you're coming from exactly if Mulholland Drive is a good film or a better one than Blue Velvet because, say, Diane is such a clearly drawn no-talent loser would-be sublebrity. That's not the character I see in the film at all. Just like the idea of a single solvable equation of the film where such-and-such is all-real and such-and-such is all-dream seems to diminish most of the mystery and beauty of the film.

Sorry, I'm probably not expressing myself clearly. My comment about Diane's character was meant as praise. She seems to me to be the sort of character who is rarely portrayed as the central character in a movie. I certainly don't see her as a simple or entirely unsympathetic character. Naomi Watts' brilliant performance brings her to life in all her complexity and pathos. I find her a much more interesting character than Sandy or Jeffrey in Blue Velvet.
Again, I don't see that the standard dream interpretation simplifies the film in a damaging way, and there's still plenty of mystery left. The dream interpretation is largely accepted by the editors of Wrapped In Plastic and the author of David Lynch: Beautiful Dark and they both wrote long detailed articles on the complexity and brilliance of the film.

I guess to me it's more in the nuance of how you're seeing/saying things. Diane is not a successful actress, but there's no evidence that she has no talent per se, only that she hasn't made it and her friend has. I don't see Diane as necessarily pursuing all the superficial trappings of Hollywood success either. For her it's more about being left out and left behind in the most profound ways -- rejected artistically and romantically.

Likewise with my strong feelings on the "it's all a dream" interpretation, which goes all the way back to reading that Ambrose Bierce story "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" in grade school. Ever since, "it's all a dream" for me has been kind of a gimmicky device. Once you figure that out, you've "solved" the story that uses it and also kind of thrown away everything leading up to that moment as more or less a clever ruse. Mulholland Drive may use different interrelated and interpenetrating realities to reflect one another. But if Betty is Diane's wish than Diane is equally Betty's nightmare. It's not like a simple one-to-one correspondence between the really real thing that actually happened and the frenzied figments you were fooled with up until the actual truth was revealed.

warren oates wrote: ...Likewise with my strong feelings on the "it's all a dream" interpretation, which goes all the way back to reading that Ambrose Bierce story "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" in grade school. Ever since, "it's all a dream" for me has been kind of a gimmicky device. Once you figure that out, you've "solved" the story that uses it and also kind of thrown away everything leading up to that moment as more or less a clever ruse...

Whether or not the "it's all a dream" conceit is used in a gimmicky manner does not negate the importance of the dream imagery nor simplify it. MULHOLLAND DRIVE, like Bierce's story, does not throw away everything that came before by providing an unexpected context near the end. I think you're dismissing this trope out-of-hand and slighting AN OCCURRENCE AT OWL CREEK BRIDGE unfairly (Bierce is my favorite author!). The last sentence reveal in OWL CREEK alters what was thought to be descriptive action into a very specific psychological analysis of the lead character. What was thought to be objective becomes subjective and requires a second (or third) reading to fully appreciate the author's intent. Lynch achieves something similar with MULHOLLAND DRIVE by including an unexpected third act that forces the viewer to re-evaluate the events depicted during the first two-thirds of the film. There is a very specific tonal shift to divide the "dream world" from what one assumes must be the reality of Diane's story. I believe Lynch wants the viewer to recognize this. Once this trope is established, Lynch keeps the connections between the two worlds fairly ambiguous which can allow (and encourage) multiple interpretations of what certain details might mean.

I'm not meaning to slight Bierce. He's a fine writer and that story is great as is the French short film that was made from it. But he kind of did it first and best (Please correct me if I'm wrong and haven't thought of other compelling examples in the history of storytelling). And the short story doesn't get very deeply into his character's head. It's simple and straightforward and effective -- the dying brain's desperate final grasp at life. And every time I've seen that device since, I can't help thinking "Ah, like the Bierce story again, but not as good." Even a really decent modern genre take on it like Jacob's Ladder still seems to suffer a bit by comparison. And the French film of Owl Creek, which was broadcast as a Twilight Zone episode seems to have inspired many subsequent twist-happy genre exercises like The Sixth Sense, most of which really do seem to be all about cleverly fooling the audience.

But I can't help thinking Lynch is up to something altogether different. Yes, the third act reframes everything that's come before like Bierce's final sentence. But the connections in Mulholland Drive are more surreal and more Moebius-like in terms of before/after and cause/effect. After I saw the film the first time, I was blown away but kind of stuck in the "all a dream" notion of it. But seeing it again many more times and reflecting on it in the context of all his other work has opened up the film for me. I don't think Lynch is choosing between either reality or asking us to.

Movies Unlimited's tip last year about the film's Criterion release is proved accurate by the latest newsletter clue