Mulholland Drive

[Brian Koontz]

I saw an episode or two of Twin Peaks (one of my friends loved it) and otherwise haven't seen anything from David Lynch prior to this film.

The best thing to say about the film is that it seems like a dream. Dreams might be irrelevant, fleeting, and meaningless, and this movie accurately portrays this by imitating all of that.

The two scenes that generate the most emotion (the Audition and the Spanish Song) aren't part of the plot (such as it is)... which makes me realize just how bad the movie is.

Many dreams actually have plots and many dreams ARE sensible... not Lynch's however.

The characters are "fun" to look at. They have virtually no development... Style completely takes the place of Substance. Your dream one night can completely contradict your dream the next night.

Some scenes are played to an extreme cheese factor, such as closeups of faces in moments of no importance.

The characters seem to understand they are in a dream... they don't bother to demand explanations. They are defeated by their own necessary ignorance.

Thankfully for Amnesia there is some semblance of a plot.

The dialogue is stilted, stylized, and parts of it made me cringe. Fortunately most of the movie is silent.

I asked myself why the light below the cattle head at Cowboy's flickered so much before turning on... I was thinking an electrician should pay a visit. But then I realized like the entire rest of the film, it has no meaning. The one question you can never ask of this film is Why?

This perhaps stands as the most critically overrated film in history. It isn't even a film in the traditional sense... or that is to say there is no rational base to which things like the plot relate. Which would be just fine if this rational base was replaced by something equivalent or better. But its not.

Stylized irrelevancy. I only asked Why once, and I quickly learned that nothing in this film matters. Why ask Why? Try Mulholland Drive.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Tim, this probably isn't a good movie for your kids either.

[Jim Preston]

Tim, this probably isn't a good movie for your kids either.

Good point. I'd start them with something lighter from Lynch...like Blue Velvet. They may enjoy Eraserhead if they're fond of black and white with mono sound or guys that live in radiators.

[Anonymous]

Just because you don't understand this fantastic movie doesn't make it crap.

Maid in Manhattan is easy to follow, perhaps you should check it out.

[mtkafka]

'sylized irrelevancy'? huh? i actually think Mulholland Drive is one of the 'easier' Lynch movies to follow. Its basically about a small town girl having her dreams destroyed by trying to make it in Hollywood. The first part is the nancy drew tv dream come true and the second part is a hellish nightmare. Also, its not so much the plot thats important in a Lynch film but what you get out of the scenes... like how bout that scene with the guy freaked by the homeless man behind the dumpster!?! that was freaky! or the scene with the director getting kicked out of his house by his wife (who is having an affair with Billy Ray Cyrus)!

If you want a plot driven Lynch movie you're better off with Elephant Man and The Straight Story... both really good movies.

etc

[wumpus]

The Straight Story is very, very good. Plus, it's about Iowa.

Also, Mulholland Drive is worth seeing for the boob factor alone. I liked it, but it definitely meandered-- you can tell it's the pilot for a television show which never materialized.

[TimElhajj]

The Straight Story is very, very good. Plus, it's about Iowa.

Second that. I loved Straight Story


Also, Mulholland Drive is worth seeing for the boob factor alone

Well, the kids used to be big on boobs a few years back, but Wholly thinks no, so I am going to play it safe.

[Chris Floyd]

This perhaps stands as the most critically overrated film in history. It isn't even a film in the traditional sense... or that is to say there is no rational base to which things like the plot relate. Which would be just fine if this rational base was replaced by something equivalent or better. But its not.

Brian, Brian, Brian. First of all, saying Mulholland Drive isn't a FILM is more absurd than saying Mafia is a puzzle game. It's a bunch of moving pictures, isn't it? To even assume that a "film" requires a plot by definition is narrow-minded. Perhaps what you meant to say is that it isn't a film in the conventional sense. Well, Lynch isn't a conventional director.

What's funny is that you point out some of the great merits of the movie and then say they don't account for much. Is there something wrong with a movie that has the logic of a dream? Does that make it deficient? I would say that the dreamy atmosphere is exactly what Lynch replaces the "rational base" with. While it may not be perfectly followable at every moment, it's something everyone is familiar with.

BUT, it's also short-sighted to imply that Lynch doesn't have any idea what's rationally going on in his own film. There is a logic in many of his works, it's just a self-contained logic. Salon.com had an analysis of the film that I think had a lot of good points and showed that there really is a story going on after all. Warning: Not only does it contain spoilers, but it will shape the way you see the film. You may not be able to think of it outside of this context again:

http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/

[Brian Koontz]

Is there something wrong with a movie that has the logic of a dream? Does that make it deficient? I would say that the dreamy atmosphere is exactly what Lynch replaces the "rational base" with. While it may not be perfectly followable at every moment, it's something everyone is familiar with.

Dreams are nearly irrelevant, but that doesn't necessarily mean a movie with dream-like qualities has to also be irrelevant. Certainly if a movie tries to imitate the qualities of dreams (not only irrational but often absurd, fleeting, highly obscure) it suffers all of the *weaknesses* of dreams, making it nearly impossible to make a good movie based on it.

A movie is much better off using dream-elements sparingly than using dreams as the basis for the entire film.

If there really WAS a "dream-logic" to the film there might be value. But the film had NO logic, period. Dreams usually make some kind of sense (its just a weird kind of sense). I kept waiting for some kind of sense to emerge (even a weird kind) and nothing happened. The film can be broken down into Some Fear, Some Love, Some Passion, Some Jealousy, but since I had zero care for any of the characters I really didn't even care about THAT. I have no emotional investment in these characters because there is NO characterization. Similar to the Jason slasher films, it ends up being a Comedy because there is no emotional attachment.

The one scene that is ostensibly the show-stopper, where the showman says something like "Its all an illusion" isn't even true. The people who made the recording that is acted out by the showpeople are NOT illusory. All the showmen are doing are (with a wink to the audience to let them know what is going on) pretending to be creating what someone else has already created. And the showmen are adding themselves to the recording to create a new experience. How humble they are when they speak of "illusion"!

With all of the acting metaphors in the picture, Lynch is trying to say something about the enforced falsity of the situation... about the echoes of true reality (ode to Plato). Although I'm no fan of actors or the acting profession, I never make the mistake of understanding what they are doing as an illusion. Actors re-interpret human experience in their own way, they examine a setting and add themselves to it through their character. Its not a false thing laid over a real thing as Lynch seems to believe. Actors re-examine human lives and on their good days at least improve them.

I never found the atmosphere to be dreamy. The camerawork, the lighting, the images, etc. were purely realistic (albeit at times eccentric such as Cowboy or Cowboy's light, but Hollywood has more than its share of eccentrics). It was the PLOT (again, such as it was) that was dreamlike.

[Anonymous]

Hey Brian,

Here are some showtimes for Maid in Manhattan.

Maid in Manhattan (PG)

12:00, 2:15, (4:30), 7:15, 9:45, 11:30

Those movies that make you "thunk reel hard" are beyond your comprehension, so J-Lo's latest romantic comedy should be straightforward enough to soothe your feeble lil mind.

[wumpus]

That was weak, even by Brian Koontz post standards.

[Brian Koontz]

Those movies that make you "thunk reel hard" are beyond your comprehension, so J-Lo's latest romantic comedy should be straightforward enough to soothe your feeble lil mind.

I read the analysis of the film on Salon which I thought was very good, but it doesn't raise the value of the picture, partially because Lynch's view of the medium of film and of acting is false and partially because even assuming Lynch's position to be true, the film *other than* on an intellectual level (such as an emotional level) really doesn't work.

Acting is about the re-examination of a human life and setting and seeing what can be created using that human life. It is certainly exploitative and the relationship between the identity of the actor and the identity of the role leaves great bounds for examination, but the result is either a FAILURE (which definitely occurs most of the time) or a success, where success means the creation of something worthwhile.

I take a photo. I then pass the photo to you. You examine the photo and notice things I never saw. Your *re-examination* of the photo produced dividends.

That's what acting is. Enabling the audience to experience something that allows them to learn something (perhaps about themselves), or maybe just to teach them that there is something they could learn.

Poor Lynch... what does he think acting is?

Whatever it is, it doesn't make for a good movie.

[antlers]

Thanks for the link to the Salon.com article

[Chris Floyd]

Brian, here are some very simple ways that acting is illusion:

1) The actor is NOT ACTUALLY the person they are pretending to be.
2) The actor is NOT ACTUALLY experiencing the emotions and thoughts they are projecting.
3) We are meant to react to the actor as if those things WERE real, and as if they ARE the person they are claiming to be.

Of course, #3 doesn't usually happen, sespecially in a Hollywood film. We all know Harrison Ford isn't the President of the United States; he's Harrison Ford. In a film that, setting aside, is about truth and illusion -- in fact, literally about dreams and waking ("Time to wake up," quoth the cowboy) -- the Hollywood setting is apropos. Watching Harrison Ford is like recognizing the illusion and the truth at the same time.

As for the film working on an emotional level, well, I was scared by the dumpster. Threatened by the cowboy. Enthralled by the stage show. And I won't even talk about the sex scenes.

I will admit that Lynch is not a "feature length" director, in the sense that his films are better examined scene by scene -- sometimes even frame by frame -- than as a whole. Each scene is its own aesthetic whole, and this approach is sometimes detrimental to the entire film's aesthetic quality. But that isn't a bad thing; Shakespeare, I'd argue, is the same way. As a matter of personal taste, I prefer this style as it gives me overall a more rewarding experience. Every minute is worth watching for itself. There are no scenes that are there to service the whole plot with no other purpose or value. Movies that focus on your precious "plot" tend to be full of such scenes.

[antlers]

Actually, I thought the movie works as a whole. As you watch it, you keep getting exposed to new pieces of the puzzle, but you can't fit them together. But your subconscious is trying to make sense of them, and the glimmers of meaning emerging in the back of your mind illuminate the new scenes as you see them, in ways that you can't quite put words to. Then the end comes, the last piece, and the whole picture crystallizes for you in a succession of "Ah hah" moments that deepen the impression of terrible sadness that you somehow suspected was there all along.

The director doesn't hold your hand on the way to where he's going, because it has more of an impact if you find it yourself.

[Brian Koontz]

Brian, here are some very simple ways that acting is illusion:

1) The actor is NOT ACTUALLY the person they are pretending to be.

Noone is fooled. An illusion by definition is something that fools, something false that pretends to be real.

Actors aren't pretending to be someone else, they are taking themselves and re-creating the role. They are using someone else's (thus exploitative) life as a stepping stone toward their own re-creation.

A man might paint a picture. Does that mean he is pretending to see a different world, that which is described by the picture? After all, he then looks at his creation.

An actor takes a role (a human life within a setting) and reenvisions it, reinvents it, recreates it. It is NOT NOT NOT an attempt to REENACT it. It is not an illusion that attempts to BE the real. It is something totally different.

A man might look at a tree and then draw that tree. But the tree he draws is not the tree he sees! The eyes of humans are similar but the art of humans is very different... thus does the actor impart through his art his INTERPRETATION of the role... his improving of the role.

Lynch's position that the actor attempts to BE the real is false... the actor attempts to use the real to create new reality!

A great acting performance is not noted for its degree of closeness to the real thing that foretold the role but rather for its degree of improvement upon it!

Lynch himself accidentally provides this truth with his Audition scene. That "performance" was not great because it was CLOSE to the real but rather because it was GREATER THAN the real. The Audition scene is my understanding in a nutshell.



2) The actor is NOT ACTUALLY experiencing the emotions and thoughts they are projecting.

Yes, they are, which is why so many Hollywood romances begin with a movie romance. It IS true however that actors have to create a schism inside themselves to differentiate their non-acting identity from their role. This very schism is what makes actors weak and overcoming this schism is often what allows an actor to give a great performance.

Method acting is all about manipulating the schism.

The reason why certain actors are better at certain roles is that their life-experiences and their knowledge have guided them toward those roles.



3) We are meant to react to the actor as if those things WERE real, and as if they ARE the person they are claiming to be.

LOL... then they are pathetically unable to achieve what they "meant"!

What I do and what movie watchers do when watching a film is to consider the film... consider the truths the film is offering. Not consider it AS IF it were real but rather to COMPARE IT AGAINST the real.

A film is not an ATTEMPT to be real but rather an attempt to DEFEAT the real and to create reality (that is, to replace reality with the truths the film provides).

That is what all art is and films are art... to improve reality by means of replacement.

And that is what a movie watcher decides... where and when the movie is in fact victorious.

The Godfather is a tremendous example. The Godfather was great not because it was CLOSE TO the real, but because it was so much better than it.

So much better that it then INFLUENCED the Mob and public perception of the Mob ever after...

It has never been about Illusion.

[Sebmolo]

Dude,
No. Films are not trying to create reality. Films are art, which is all about creating an emotional response. If you go in with Dragonlance Chronicles in hand trying to fit what you see to some cockamamie schema of 'real' reality and 'illusionary' reality then obviously you're going to miss the point, which is that Mulholland Drive is a strange, deliberately incomprehensible work of art. You can assign meanings to the various happenings, but there is no correct understanding of what it's all about. The trick is to find a meaning which provides some kind of intellectual framework to the emotions evoked by the piece.

For films like that you're better just letting it wash over you, then seeing what sticks; what images come to mind a few days later. Remember, he's making the films because that's what he wants to see and hear on screen, not to make everyone happy. Chris Columbus wants to make everyone happy. George Lucas wants everyone to buy his merchandise, which requires that they at least not be unhappy.

I'm sorry about the Dragonlance crack, but if you're gonna make the big calls then it's fair game. My advice - bite the bullet and check out Lost Highway too; it's way less understandable than MD, but damn is it good. Then come back and post.

sml

[Brian Koontz]

I'm sorry about the Dragonlance crack, but if you're gonna make the big calls then it's fair game. My advice - bite the bullet and check out Lost Highway too; it's way less understandable than MD, but damn is it good. Then come back and post.

I'm highly unlikely to watch anything else by Lynch. Apparently the problem with Lynch's movie was that it WAS understood.

[Andy Mahood]

Watched the movie for the first time last week. Sorry but I'm not biting.

The following review sums up my feelings about this film to a T.

http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/m/mulholland_drive.html

[Slothrop]

I was really confused for a while after watching it the first time. Then I thought about it for a day and watched it again, and I think I worked it out: the actual events depicted in the movie take place over about 24 hours. The majority of the movie is not real events, but is made up of the dreams, fantasies, and memories of Diane, the skanky version of "Betty". Everything in the first 2/3 of the movie involving Betty and Rita is Diane's dream. So, if you look at the movie from the very beginning, the Jitterbug dance sequence is Diane's memory of the Jitterbug contest she won in Canada that got her on the road to acting. The old people are maybe her grandparents. Immediately after the opening scene is a first-person perspective shot of Diane's bedroom, very blurry. We see the pillow coming up to meet the camera as Diane lies down and falls asleep. The next scene, of the limo driving on Mulholland Dr. at night, is the beginning of Diane's dream. The whole point of the dream is that Diane is creating a "dream-place" where her and Rita/Camilla can be together again. The dream dialog has a 1950's gee-whiz feel to it, perhaps because Diane is influenced by the film she was in of Adam's that was set in the 50's. The device of the femme fatale who has lost her memory is basically Diane's way of having control over Camilla--she gets to name her Rita, dress her up like a doll (remember that red top and black outfit Rita was wearing when they went to investigate Diane's apartment? Rowr!), do her hair (and in the scene after Betty puts the wig on Rita and looks in the mirror, at first you think Rita is a mannequin she looks so unreal), and finally, seduce her.

Mixed in with these fantasies in the dream are undertones of danger and fear, which come to a climax with finding the dead body, and of sadness and loss, which culminate in the nightclub Silencio and the singing of Roy Orbison's Crying by Rebekah Del Rio.
The box opening is the dream ending and Diane waking up to the knocking of her "rebound" lover after Camilla, the neighbor, coming by to pick up the last of her possessions from their breakup, and informing her that "those detectives" are looking for her. So we are back in the "present", and Diane is looking like hell, and has the law interested in her. She brews some coffee and has a fantasy of Camilla returning to her. She takes her coffee to the couch and remembers the sequence of events leading up to her being here with the blue key on the coffee table.

First she recalls the last time she and Camilla had a tryst, and Camilla ended it. She remembers the dinner party in which she was humiliated and found out that Camilla was dumping her for Adam and a new lesbian friend, and we learn about how Diane and Camilla actually met: Diane has basically been a hanger-on, getting little roles in Camilla's movies, rather than being the phenomenal actress whose screen test was both highly erotic and excruciating to watch.

Finally, she remembers meeting with a man and hiring him to kill Camilla, who has spurned her. The blue key is his calling card, and the fact that it is sitting on the coffee table in the present means that the deed has been done, which explains why Diane looks so bad: she is wracked by guilt and loss. The evil old people are her personal demons or conscience coming back to her, and the final scene where they appear under the door and chase her is Diane's mental breakdown when the cops arrive to arrest her for Camilla's murder: the red flashing lights are from the police cruisers, and the banging on the door is a detective. She runs into the bedroom and shoots herself, and we see Diana and Camilla reunited in the afterlife.

All the doublings of items and people from the first part of the movie to the last are just Diane using things she saw in waking life in her dream, like changing Coco from Adam's mother to the landlord of her dream apartment, transforming the blue key, etc. As for what the real life blue key unlocked, I don't know. Someone said there is a blue box in the drawer when she grabs the gun, maybe the hitman put Camilla's ear in it and delivered it as proof that she was dead.

So there you go. I think it is a very sad and poignant film from that perspective, because Diane's dream is so pathetically doomed and charged with deep longing, especially Veronika Del Rio's singing.

[Brian Koontz]

So there you go. I think it is a very sad and poignant film from that perspective, because Diane's dream is so pathetically doomed and charged with deep longing, especially Veronika Del Rio's singing.

My argument against this movie and against Lynch stand. Acting is not about "being the real" but rather about being greater than it. Acting is not about pretending but rather about creating.

Diane, in addition to her problem of agreeing with Lynch (per the "message" indicated in the "illusory" song and dance routine) is routinely vain, vindictive, manipulative, and dictatorial, besides being a headcase. She's an ideal person to avoid, which I was unable to do while simultaneously watching this picture.

Superimposing a constructed reality upon "the real" is fine, but Diane is the last person in the world that should be doing such a thing. Silencio was good advice... too bad she took it after the movie instead of before.

The movie gives us no reason to care about Diane or any of her constructed reality... so any sad and poignant aspects are never born.

[Anonymous]

Acting is not about "being the real" but rather about being greater than it.

That's ridiculous. Nothing man can do is "greater" than reality. Beyond the obvious point that everything which exists is, in fact "real," human brains are far too small to comprehend the whole of our universe, much less transcend it.

[Brian Koontz]

Acting is not about "being the real" but rather about being greater than it.

That's ridiculous. Nothing man can do is "greater" than reality. Beyond the obvious point that everything which exists is, in fact "real," human brains are far too small to comprehend the whole of our universe, much less transcend it.

Child A has identity A. Child A then hears Mariah Carey sing a song. Child A is impressed and now Child A has identity B.

To that child, Mariah Carey is greater than the reality she replaced.

Every aspect of human identity is attributable. Great acting influences what people think humans can do, how they can behave, what goals they can have.

Take a look at the audition scene in Mulholland Drive. Even for Diane who ostensibly agrees with Lynch about what acting is this is her "star performance".

Take a look at the audition scene. Your first thought is not "Wow, this is REALLY realistic!". Its "Wow, this is BETTER than realistic".

How many women look to actresses for their self-possession and their passion? Precisely what Diane was *creating* in that scene. Not an re-enactment of reality but an *improvement upon* it.

The impression of the scene was not that we didn't think *actors* could be like that, but that we didn't think *humans* could be like that.

Is 2001: A Space Odyssey a re-enactment of humanity? Or is it art that *creates* reality? And are the actors trying to be human or rather trying to support the movie in its creation of reality?

[Ergo]

The art-fag pretentiousness of this particular thread is making my legs go numb.

[Tom Ohle]

Second-favorite film of all time. It's not all a dream. Half of it is. I've watched it a good 5 or 6 times, and I've figured out why 95% of the scenes are in there--it pretty much all makes sense. If you didn't get it, you just didn't think hard enough.
Every poor review I've seen of the movie has said something along the lines of "the film is completely nonsensical." I haven't heard from anyone that understood it that I've talked to about it (and I preach the Mulholland Drive love to a lot of people) that it was a bad movie... (wow, weird sentence there, but I think it makes sense). Everyone who understood the film thought it was phenomenal.

[Slothrop]

I hope a collector's edition DVD comes out for it with some good extras.

[Ergo]

Don't hold your breath--Lynch, for whatever reason, is averse to making "special editions" of his movies.

[Tom Ohle]

The only real gripe I had with the flick is that the DVD isn't broken up into chapters. Damn eccentric Lynch.

[Chris Floyd]

Roger Ebert does an annual, open-to-the-public film explication at the University of Colorado and I was lucky enough to get to go to a session of it this year. Mulholland Drive was the film he covered. It's basically a bunch of people watching the film and occasionally yelling at him to "STOP!" so they can make a comment (Ebert makes most of the comments).

The reason I mention it is that if Ebert ever hit the wrong button on the DVD remote, the movie would restart and there was no quick way to skip back to the middle of it. He'd curse; everyone would groan; and the long fast forward would begin. There's a part of me that thinks that chapters in movies (especially when they're titled) are an awkward and artificial construction of the DVD format... Of course, I once felt the same way about CD tracks... There really should be a faster fast forward available on DVD players, though, shouldn't there? Even if Lynch is the only rebel against the system?

The DVD version of Mulholland Drive has one "special feature". It is a written list of about 10 clues to help you understand the film, written by Lynch himself. Not surprisingly, even these are pretty obscure.

Oh, look. Here's a link to them (http://kubrick.cdes.qut.edu.au/~n3130746/hints.htm).

[Desslock]

There really should be a faster fast forward available on DVD players, though, shouldn't there?

Typically there is -- by pressing the FF button multiple times, you can increast it to 2X, 8X, 30X speed.

[Supertanker]

There really should be a faster fast forward available on DVD players, though, shouldn't there?

Typically there is -- by pressing the FF button multiple times, you can increast it to 2X, 8X, 30X speed.

When we got our DVD player last year, it took me forever to figure out how to rewind a bit. With no help in the manual, I eventually discovered that I had to start fast forwarding, then hit the "back" control to turn it into a rewind. These also have speed multipliers for consecutive presses like Desslock mentioned. Would standard VCR controls be too much to ask? I get component video outputs, but no "reverse" button? Still feels kludgy.

[Andy Mahood]

Everyone who understood the film thought it was phenomenal.

Not so. I understand perfectly what Lynch was attempting to do but I still found the film to be manipulative and dishonest. "Getting" the plot and buying into it are two different things here. Read over the review that I linked to in my original post and you'll see that the reviewer understood the movie just fine too.

Chacun a son gout I suppose.

[Bub, Andrew]

Would standard VCR controls be too much to ask? I get component video outputs, but no "reverse" button? Still feels kludgy.

My Sony DVD player has a reverse speed button, but only goes to X2 fast forward.

[Anonymous]

Chacun a son gout I suppose.

Chacun à son gôut.

If you're going to get élégant, do it right.

[Andy Mahood]

Fuck those French squigglies! 8)

[Ergo]

Weenie must be from Paris. Only Parisians are that anal about their language.

"It's not what you say, it's how you say it."

[Brian Koontz]

Everyone who understood the film thought it was phenomenal.

The movie is ok... the character and taste of the man who made the film are not. As a result the movie is offensive.

[Chris Floyd]

Brian -- What do you think you know about David Lynch from watching his movie? And why do these personal qualities affect the quality of the film? If I told you it was by David Fincher, would it make the same movie better?

[Brian Koontz]

Brian -- What do you think you know about David Lynch from watching his movie? And why do these personal qualities affect the quality of the film? If I told you it was by David Fincher, would it make the same movie better?

All of these questions can be answered earlier in this thread, but I'll do a quick synopsis...

The Club Silencio scene provides us with Lynch's message for the film, which is that Actors are people who desperately want to be real. Any GOOD acting (classicly espoused by the singer in Club Silencio) is simply a matter of a GOOD ILLUSION.

The whole dream sequence of Diane is set up in order to convince herself of an alternate reality. She is presenting an illusion TO HERSELF... she is simultaneously her own director, actor, and audience.

Diane agrees with Lynch... thus her freaking out at the Club Silencio when Lynch's "truth" hits home.

But Lynch's "truth" is anything but true. Actors exploit reality in order to create, but they DO create. Thus while Lynch and Diane see the singer in Club Silencio as a great tragedy since they see her as IMITATING reality, I see the singer as using a soundtrack to create something that the ORIGINAL singer did not.

Or to sum up, Lynch and Diane see the whole point of acting in becoming as close as possible to reality, while I see the whole point of acting to create reality through exploiting the real.

And the audition scene proves my point, as Diane in that scene was *greater* than real.

This is far from a trivial difference... anyone who understands that acting is nothing more than an attempt to become real by necessity misses the value of acting. And by extension, audiences are condemned for valuing people who are so pathetic that all they do is try to imitate people they call "real".

By supporting the film you also support what the film is ABOUT... what Diane and Lynch believe about the film's reality.

As an analogy, would you support a film made by a psychopath about his murderous exploits? How about if the film was stylish, intelligent, with good acting? Or would you call such a film "Offensive"?

Only humans with no values whatsoever both enter and exit a film blind. What does the subject matter matter to such people? They just look for how well a film is "crafted" and call it a day.

I have to admit... those people are even worse than Lynch.

[Ergo]

Oh. My. God.

[Chris Floyd]

So, you'll extrapolate what Lynch is trying to say about acting from the singer's bit and then somehow claim that the audition scene is Lynch (apparently unknowingly) contradicting himself? How about giving him the credit of writing and directing THAT scene, too?

Club Silencio took place within Diane's fantasy. It was the moment when truth came knocking. Just because actors can do more than replicate reality doesn't mean they're not accountable to reality. And moreso than actors, desperate and delusional people like Diane have to acknowledge the truth sometime. Could you propose a change to Mulholland Drive which would reconcile the dreamer/actor analogy according to your paradigm?

[Brian Koontz]

So, you'll extrapolate what Lynch is trying to say about acting from the singer's bit

No... that's just the focal point of the movie... its a good illustration.

The whole point to the movie is that Diane creates an illusory reality that she wishes were real. The whole movie is about an attempt to be real. My claim is that Diane's understanding of acting (that it is an attempt to be real) creates her actions in the film... that she undertakes the actions she does precisely out of her agreement with Lynch. If Diane agreed with me this movie simply would not have been made, since Diane would not have undergone anything close to this kind of illusory reality.


and then somehow claim that the audition scene is Lynch (apparently unknowingly) contradicting himself?

Lynch understands the audition scene as Diane's idealized acting performance. But does Lynch understand my interpretation of the audition scene or does he, like the Club Silencio scene, see it as merely a GOOD illusion? Taking the WHOLE context of this movie, the likely situation is the latter. If you assume Lynch appreciates the audition scene in the same way I do, the scene makes little sense... it becomes anachronistic.


How about giving him the credit of writing and directing THAT scene, too?

I absolutely do... I just deny him the credit of understanding it. The creator of art is seperate from the appreciator of it.


Club Silencio took place within Diane's fantasy. It was the moment when truth came knocking. Just because actors can do more than replicate reality doesn't mean they're not accountable to reality.

That's not an issue. It is inevitable (given realism) that a house of cards will come crashing down. My point is, the whole reason Diane creates the house of cards in the first place is that she agrees with Lynch.

Think about the movie. What does Diane lack? She's vain, vindictive, manipulative, amazingly self-serving. In her fantasy Rita is her slave. Is this an example of a human being for whom acting is creating greater reality? Is she obsessed with Rita because she sees her as being more real than herself? Even while Rita is her slave everything she does is "for" Rita. But never due to Rita's wishes... Rita is mute. Diane MUST help Rita... not for Rita but for Diane. Diane through Rita wants to become what she sees Rita as already being... real. Its identical to a fan of a celebrity wanting to touch the celebrity... maybe some of "it" will rub off.

Diane is incredibly desperate. What she wants is what Rita has. In the audition scene her understanding is that *there* she has what Rita has. But... that's where she's wrong. Her performance is on her own terms.

What Diane is never ever able to see due to her constant focus on "the real" is... herself. And this focus, this utter void of self-knowledge, is due to her understanding of acting as "becoming the real".


And moreso than actors, desperate and delusional people like Diane have to acknowledge the truth sometime. Could you propose a change to Mulholland Drive which would reconcile the dreamer/actor analogy according to your paradigm?

In order to create greater reality through acting your constant focus has to be ON reality. And you have to be cold enough and analytical enough to look at what you are doing and judge that. Lets just say Diane failed this aspect of my understanding of acting miserably ;).

An actor has to find something in a performance that is stellar. Lets take a few examples...

Jim Carrey - the guy like most great comics is an emotional wreck. Carrey projects a sort of neurotic anti-socialism precisely because he has developed that personality. So any role in which this is necessary is his cup of tea. Its the director's job to enable this performance to "create a greater reality" by placing it within a context that accentuates the role.

John Wayne - probably the most obvious example of an actor who consistently played himself. Lovers of Method Actors (see below) HATE John Wayne for precisely this reason. John Wayne is the complete opposite of a Method Actor. John Wayne gave "good" performances because audiences liked to see John Wayne.

Method Actors - These guys are sacrifices. Unlike most actors who get to draw from their own personality these guys have no strong personality... they are highly distributed. Method Actors as they age get extremely worn down... its poisonous to undergo this process. Method Actors impress not by their great acting but rather by their ability to be good in very different roles. And since they are good in very different roles they can play pretty much any part.

[Anonymous]

John Wayne - probably the most obvious example of an actor who consistently played himself. Lovers of Method Actors (see below) HATE John Wayne for precisely this reason. John Wayne is the complete opposite of a Method Actor. John Wayne gave "good" performances because audiences liked to see John Wayne.


John Wayne was a fag. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood, and he come to the door in a dress.

[Tom Chick]

John Wayne was a fag. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood, and he come to the door in a dress.

"Hell, that doesn't mean he was a homo, Miller. Lot's of guys like to watch their buddies fuck. I know I do."

-Tom

[DrCrypt]

O Brian, Where Art Thou?

[Captain Cookiepants]

I'd like to point out that Mulholland Drive WASN'T a movie.

It was a failed TV series stitched together.

That's right, he tried to make another creepy, weird TV show that's so vague people will see in it whatever they WANT to see, and call it brilliant. It's 'Rorschach Test' TV. It's brilliant cause it's anything you want it to be.

You know why the movie was disjointed and weird? He had to cut parts of the show to make room for the boobies. You know why the ending is vague? It's not really the ending, it's just the season finale. If it got renewed, the ending would have been resolved.

You know what the Rorschach Test reveals about you people that think this movie is 'brilliant'? You all think you are smarter than everyone else, you all think yourselves unusually perceptive, and you're all gullible.
Check
Mate.

[Anonymous]

You know what the Rorschach Test reveals about you people that think this movie is 'brilliant'? You all think you are smarter than everyone else, you all think yourselves unusually perceptive, and you're all gullible.
Check
Mate.


Here goes Captain Cookiecunt with his anti-intellectual rants again. Do us all a favor and take your ritalin, Baby Jane.

[Captain Cookiepants]

You know what the Rorschach Test reveals about you people that think this movie is 'brilliant'? You all think you are smarter than everyone else, you all think yourselves unusually perceptive, and you're all gullible.
Check
Mate.


Here goes Captain Cookiecunt with his anti-intellectual rants again. Do us all a favor and take your ritalin, Baby Jane.

Hmmmm...a stupid-ass 'I added 'cunt' to your name! I ownz j00' joke and a Ritalin joke from someone claiming that I am 'anti-intellectual'? What's your encore, Viagra jokes with a Carrot-Top-reference chaser?

Edit: I also see you're continuing your 'my imaginary rank is higher than YOUR imaginary rank' rampage. Good for you!!

[Bub, Andrew]

No support of any anti-John Wayne rants here but, well, his real name was Marion.

[Anonymous]

What's your encore, Viagra jokes with a Carrot-Top-reference chaser?

Aw, I just wanted to make sure you understood the jokes. If I had chosen more highbrow references you might have accused me of being pretentious or thinking I was smart. That would have hurt mah widdle feelings, biscuit boy!

[Captain Cookiepants]

What's your encore, Viagra jokes with a Carrot-Top-reference chaser?

Aw, I just wanted to make sure you understood the jokes. If I had chosen more highbrow references you might have accused me of being pretentious or thinking I was smart. That would have hurt mah widdle feelings, biscuit boy!

If you wanted to give up, you could have just not posted. Keep that in mind next time, (insert stupid nonsense alliterative psuedo-insult here)!

[Anonymous]

Insert joke here?

You're cracking, gentle munchkin.

[Ron Dulin]

John Wayne was a fag. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood, and he come to the door in a dress.

"Hell, that doesn't mean he was a homo, Miller. Lot's of guys like to watch their buddies fuck. I know I do."

Fuck a John Wayne! Just tell us who did it!

[Tom Chick]

Fuck a John Wayne! Just tell us who did it!

Nice work, Dulin! Although I believe the actual quote is 'Fuck a John Wayne! Tell us his name, pussy!'.

I'm guessing anyone who can do this has to be exactly 33 to 37 years old. I wonder how -- or even if! -- Repo Man holds up.

-Tom

[Lunch of Kong]

I wonder how -- or even if! -- Repo Man holds up.


I'll give my virgin eyes a go at it.
http://users.erols.com/bobcan/repo/script.html[/url]

[Jason McMaster]

Fuck a John Wayne! Just tell us who did it!

Nice work, Dulin! Although I believe the actual quote is 'Fuck a John Wayne! Tell us his name, pussy!'.

I'm guessing anyone who can do this has to be exactly 33 to 37 years old. I wonder how -- or even if! -- Repo Man holds up.

-Tom

Repo Man is a great movie. I always wanted a shirt that said BEER.

[Chris Floyd]

I'd like to point out that Mulholland Drive WASN'T a movie.

It was a failed TV series stitched together.

I agree with the fact that to best understand Mulholland Drive, you have to know a little bit about its history as a TV series. However, the Captain here shows that he's a little misinformed.

Most of the first half-or-so of the film was indeed from a series pilot that never aired. The eventual plot of the series is not at all the same as the film -- Lynch reimagined the story based on the footage he had. In that respect, it's an interesting filmic exercise, although maybe also a good way to ruin a movie.

As far as I know, there was no season finale shot, so CCP is wrong on that count. I'm pretty sure nearly every frame beyond the middle transition point was shot for the film only.

Sure, Lynch ended up with a disjointed film in some respects. The photography style changes, there's sudden nudity and sex, it gets creepier and grittier, etc. But as a resident Lynch-apologist, I think he was smart in how he reused his old footage. It becomes a story about two versions of reality. The differences in style and content between the two halves are a critical element of the story.

I actually think MD is a good illustration of how thoughtful and non-random Lynch's filmmaking decisions are. He thought carefully about the footage he had for the series and how to make it into a new self-contained movie.

[Ron Dulin]

Fuck a John Wayne! Just tell us who did it!
I'm guessing anyone who can do this has to be exactly 33 to 37 years old. I wonder how -- or even if! -- Repo Man holds up.

Surprisingly well. I watched it a few months ago, and it was still pretty funny. Unlike Straight to Hell, which doesn't hold up at all (if it ever did). Poor Alex Cox, after Sid & Nancy, it was a quick trip downhill.

[Tom Ohle]

Correct, Chris--Mulholland Drive was primarily a pilot for a potential show, with the rest of the footage being shot solely for the movie. And HONESTLY people... if you think this movie doesn't make any sense, then you just don't get it. Aside from one or two scenes, everything has a place in the film, and makes sense.

And John Wayne was not gay! He was the ultimate badass. At the time. Now, he'd just be a worn-out drunk that kept getting his ass kicked at high-class hollywood parties.