Mulholland Drive.... Brilliant or Balls?

Parrish_Crooks

Got the idea from another thread!

Well, this film is without a doubt, one of my favourite films of all time. Of the hit and miss (More hit) Lynch catalogue, I think he hit the mark with Mulholland Dr. The acting, photography, score, and mood all come together to add up to one of the most unsettling, disturbing, mesmerising, gripping and astonishing masterpieces of film making. The dark recesses of tinseltown have never been portrayed as powerfully. The film is timeless, it could as easily be set in the 60's as in the noughties. The eccentricities and quirks that have become a stamp of Lynchian film making are ever present, as are the apparent plotholes that ensure repeated viewings.

I know there are some that write this movie off as pointless trash, and more who think Lynch is a deranged lunatic who do not believe the Lynch hype.

So, what do we think?

oxygen_old

There is no way there was a plot behind that movie, no matter how many times you watch it. someone compared it to Primer in another thread, now Primer is a movie with a plot you can unravel, this on the other hand is not.

I remember watching this thinking, great acting, score, characters... etc, etc, just wish it had a bloody plot I could follow.

I call balls!

SuperGrover

Brilliant

Vic Vinegar

Great film! never ceases to confuse and/or fry my head in multiple ways if i think about it too much though!

Parrish_Crooks

oxygen wrote: »

There is no way there was a plot behind that movie, no matter how many times you watch it. someone compared it to Primer in another thread, now Primer is a movie with a plot you can unravel, this on the other hand is not.

I remember watching this thinking, great acting, score, characters... etc, etc, just wish it had a bloody plot I could follow.

I call balls!

There is meaning there. It's just the kind of film you have to draw your own conclusions from. I read up on forums online after I watched it.

rizzla

Balls!

Mind fu#kery for mind fu#kery's sake.

johnny_ultimate

Brilliant.
If you say you think it makes no sense, or is just pointless surrealism, watch it again. The film is a very deep one: this is the story of a very troubled woman creating a fantasy life for herself using the people she knows and the old fashioned, romantic films she loves. It is a film about films, and while it does take a lot of work to decipher (and yes, there is a lot token David Lynch WTF action - I have no idea what the man behind the diner signifies) it really does improve on multiple viewings when you watch it taking the final act on board. Always admire films that completely distort formula and convention, and Mullholland Drive does it amazingly.

Karl Hungus

Brilliant.

I absolutely love this film, and Lynch is a genius. I actually feel sorry for people who just brush it off as being pointless, or that it's being weird for the sake of it, it's like they're missing out on something fantastic.

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Brilliant.

I absolutely love this film, and Lynch is a genius. I actually feel sorry for people who just brush it off as being pointless, or that it's being weird for the sake of it, it's like they're missing out on something fantastic.

But what is it we're missing out on?

dr.bollocko

Lynch is a master craftsman of the cinematic art.
Just aside from the scripting and plot he uses.... Every single shot is set up beautifully. His use of cinematography is incredible. The contrast in colour in movies to delimit fantasy and reality, everything in the background, the position of the characters on the screen, it just makes me borderline drool when I am watching something I have seen before trying to pick up on something new. His will to be a head **** is something that makes me come back to his movies again and again and there is always something new to see in them.

senordingdong

Ok, that's the cinematography covered, what is it in the plot that the rest of us are missing?

kraggy

Parrish_Crooks wrote: »

There is meaning there. It's just the kind of film you have to draw your own conclusions from. I read up on forums online after I watched it.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Did you draw your own conclusions or agree with those of people on film fora?

Personally, I enjoyed certain shots in the film and really enjoyed some of the acting but have to say that I as a film fan like SOME sort of meaning in a film.

I'm all for directors leaving the audience with something to think about but I also like to have some clue as to where to start.

So for me, neither balls nor brilliant. Just Lynch.

Retr0gamer

A micro old couple stumbled laughing out of a bums brown paper liquor paper. And for that reason alone I call balls!

Psychedelic

Brilliant, one of my favourite films ever. It was the first Lynch film I saw, was just flicking through channels one night when saw I that Mulholland Drive had just started. I was instantly gripped by the strangeness of it all. Naomi Watts was fantastic. Soundtrack was great too.

And it does make sense. Read some reviews on IMDB for explanations on the plot. This explanation sums it up perfectly:

The general plot: Diane moves to L.A. after jitterbug contest to get into acting. At an audition, she meets Camilla with whom she falls in love. Diane becomes enraged with jealousy since Camilla sleeps with other men and women. Diane discovers the other man (the director) at a film shoot and discovers the other woman (a random blond) at the engagement party for Camilla and the director. Motivated by her rage and possessiveness, Diane hires a hit man to kill Camilla. After that is done, she is overcome by loneliness and slips into an unconscious fantasy world where she lives the life she wants to. Diane is then awakened. In her conscious state she is haunted by what she has done.

The significance of the fantasy: The film starts out, after the credits, with a 1st person p.o.v. shot depicting somebody collapsing onto a bed and slipping into unconsciousness. This is where Diane's fantasy starts. The accident is there as an excuse for her to "bring back" her dead girlfriend and justify the fantasy life. She depicts her girlfriend as meek and innocent because that is what she wished she was. In the meantime, she acts like everything is "like in the movies" because she has an escapist personality. She also, in a sense, kills herself off and assumes the identity of a waitress named Betty at a diner. The story revolving around the director is a direct result of her feeling that he was in someway victimized in reality just as she was and "convinces" herself that he was forced to choose Camilla. It was also an unconscious expression of the lack of control she felt during the party. Camilla Rhoades in the fantasy is actually the random blond from the engagement party. She hated her so much that she turned her into Camilla and made the ultimate antagonist. She then took the real Camilla and turned her into a perfect, submissive out-of-the-movies girlfriend and used Rita Hayworth as an inspiration. She also paints the hit man as a very clumsy and incapable person to further justify the survival of Camilla. Her fantasy world, unfortunately for her, was a search for Diane which ended up being herself and made the dreamworld die by taking her through a series of reminders of reality. The first reminder was Club Silencio which chanted that "there is no band" and the "instruments" you hear are not really there; this is a metaphor for the fantasy. She begins to shake violently because it shakes her perception of her surroundings. The other reminder is the blue box... Actually, the blue box is not the reminder itself (more of a Pandora's Box, really), but the blue key that opens the box. The blue key reminds her of the actual death of Camilla because it is what the hit man said would show up when it was done. Along with having love, this entire creation of hers is an escape from reality by living in the idealized Hollywood that she expected to be part of when she arrived.

This is a story showing the psychology of a very troubled woman who lost a dream. It is not series of random things specifically designed to disturb and it is not a cryptic philosophical message. It is an unfortunate chunk of the human condition that is presented beautifully.

eamon234

Psychedelic wrote: »

Brilliant, one of my favourite films ever. It was the first Lynch film I saw, was just flicking through channels one night when saw I that Mulholland Drive had just started. I was instantly gripped by the strangeness of it all. Naomi Watts was fantastic. Soundtrack was great too.

And it does make sense. Read some reviews on IMDB for explanations on the plot. This explanation sums it up perfectly:

It's still balls!

Eirebear

I love it. I love Lynch.

Slightly OT but i finally got around to watching Inland Empire last weekend (you ever have one of those films that you just never get around to seeing for whatever reasons?)

WOW! In all honesty by the end of it i hadnt a clue which way was up, down, left or right.
I had a headache from trying to figure it out, and my eyes were killing me.

But could i draw myself away from it? Of course not.
It was beautiful, truly beautiful.

Fizman

Just watched this last week with a mate. Good timinig for the thread OP.

I can honestly say that we were both pretty lost at several points throughout the film, and at the end we couldn't decide whether it was complete and utter horse sh1t or some very clever little film that was far too advanced for us to comprehend. I still don't know to be honest so I might have to sit on the fence. (If I had to side with one opinion right now though I think i'd go with balls).

Some GLORIOUS lesbo scenes however.

Sad Professor

It's a great film but it demands repeat viewings. The first time as with any Lynch film it's best to just sit back and experience the pure cinema of it.

As for what it all means?

As I see it the whole movie is a dream (or two dreams to be precise) that takes place inside the mind of a dying actress named Diane in the moments between when she shoots herself and her head hits the pillow.

The first dream is an amnesia fuelled fantasy in which her personality is split between several different characters. The 2nd dream is all of her recent memories flooding back to her.

Anyone who liked Mulholland Drive should also check out Lost Highway, it's much darker and far less accessible but has a similar structure. It's Lynch's best film imo.

Parrish_Crooks

The most popular plot explanation as mentioned a few posts back is the one that made most sense to me also. The first 3/4 of the movie being

Diane's delusional dream/fantasy and the last being a look back over the recent events in her life. These events leading up to her hiring of the hitman to kill Camilla/Rita and subsequently her taking of her own life as she is racked with guilt.

Of Course there are some things that will just not add up. As mentioned a few posts back, the man behind Winkies Diner definitely being one. Although it could be just a big Lynchian metaphor representing the dark side of Hollywood lurking behind the scenes. There are loose ends left untied, but this is David Lynch, so that's to be expected!

If you take the above theory into account, then go back and watch the film a second time, a lot more will make sense. It's so brilliantly done that I still continue to take new things from every viewing.

One example:

One of the major twists in the movie is the change of identities. Suddenly a woman we have identified with until now as Betty, is Diane. Rita is Camilla, etc. Has anyone noticed that this happens in your dreams too?! Ever have somebody that you know in real life in your dream but they have a different name?! Also notice that some things are a constant throughout the film and keep re-appearing: "Mulholland Drive" and "This is the girl...". Ever happened that you heard something trivial one day at work, or on TV or something, forgot about it, only to have it pop up in your dream repeatedly?!

It really does demand some reading, then a repeat viewing. It will be worth your while!:)

Anyone who liked Mulholland Drive should also check out Lost Highway, it's much darker and far less accessible but has a similar structure. It's Lynch's best film imo.

It's kind of similar but far less mesmerizing, I thought anyway. Definitely much darker also, the 'Mystery man' is one of the most unsettling characters in movie history! IN fact, the whole thing is quite disturbing and unsettling. Definitely worth a watch for fans of Lynch/Mulholland Dr/Unconventional movies though.

Sad Professor

Parrish_Crooks wrote: »

Of Course there are some things that will just not add up. As mentioned a few posts back, the man behind Winkies Diner definitely being one. Although it could be just a big Lynchian metaphor representing the dark side of Hollywood lurking behind the scenes.

I think it represents her guilt.

The hit-man (whom she meets in Winkies) tells her that when the job is done he'll leave a blue key in the place he told her. I think it's fair to assume that place is the back of the coffee shop. In her dream she connects the key and the place she finds it with the guilt she feels over Camilla, hence the monster. And it's from this man/monster at the back of Winkies that the old couple emanate at the end of the movie. This old couple were probably Diane's parents/guardians and so represent her conscience, which makes sense since they drive her to suicide.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Anyone who liked Mulholland Drive should also check out Lost Highway, it's much darker and far less accessible but has a similar structure. It's Lynch's best film imo.

Hmm not sure about that. Lost Highway is my least favourite of his 'mad' films, don't really like the tone and actually felt it was more accessiable and more easily interpreted than his other stuff (got a sort of Third Policeman vibe from it). Still a very, very good film (mainly for this, which is one of my favourite scenes of all times, and disturbs the hell out of me no matter how many times I subject myself to it) but didn't win me over like his other ones.

Inland Empire, now there's an inaccessiable film :pac: Two viewings close to each other and I still only have the vaguest of ideas about whats going on. Tend to just get hypnotised by the audio-visual brilliance and forget to pay attention to anything else.

While his films may be difficult, I think even on first watching I adore them for their sheer technical and artistic brilliance. Sure, Mullholland Drive demands repeat viewings, but the first time still sticks with me as a film very, very unlike anything I'd seen before (was probably only about 15 at the time). That bizarre scene at the theatre (the pandoras box sequence) really sticks with me: a very haunting and accomplished tangent.

Parrish_Crooks

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Inland Empire, now there's an inaccessiable film :pac: Two viewings close to each other and I still only have the vaguest of ideas about whats going on. Tend to just get hypnotised by the audio-visual brilliance and forget to pay attention to anything else. .

+1, Dementia never felt so good

While his films may be difficult, I think even on first watching I adore them for their sheer technical and artistic brilliance. Sure, Mullholland Drive demands repeat viewings, but the first time still sticks with me as a film very, very unlike anything I'd seen before (was probably only about 15 at the time). That bizarre scene at the theatre (the pandoras box sequence) really sticks with me: a very haunting and accomplished tangent.

+1. There's something in Mulholland Dr that draws you in. Even the opening credits where the limousine is winding along the dark road still gets me. The theatre scene was unlike anything I had seen, "There is no band.... And yet... We hear a band..." Made so much more sense the second time!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

has anyone mentioned the lesbian sex scene yet?

cos that was pretty sweet

monkeyfudge

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

has anyone mentioned the lesbian sex scene yet?

cos that was pretty sweet

I don't know about current DVD releases... but the first DVD release had no chapter marks on it... making it difficult to skip to that scene... bastards!!!

It's worth noting that Mulholland drive was originally a pilot for a TV series like Twin Peaks, but it wasn't picked up. Lynch managed to get a completion fund off TV5 and turned it into a feature film instead. I'm guessing this adds to the overall confusion as if it had become a full TV series certain characters and plot elements would have been a lot more fleshed out.

Sad Professor

monkeyfudge wrote: »

I don't know about current DVD releases... but the first DVD release had no chapter marks on it... making it difficult to skip to that scene... bastards!!!

Lynch was initially against dvd chapters as he believes a film should be watched all in one go. He approved them for the current 2-disc dvd however.

Parrish_Crooks

Sad Professor wrote: »

Lynch was initially against dvd chapters as he believes a film should be watched all in one go. He approved them for the current 2-disc dvd however.

Ya It was tough sitting through that scene alright....

There's a 2 disc?? :eek:

I have the Region 1 and Region 2 release (Had to buy it again while I was living in the states!) but never knew there was a 2 disc!

Lynch's extras are usually p1ss poor anyway. He gives away nothing about his films, so usually it's just cast interviews and a few featurettes. I'd sell my soul for a Lynch commentary!

monkeyfudge

Parrish_Crooks wrote: »

Ya It was tough sitting through that scene alright....

Hey... I said I couldn't skip to that scene... not skip the scene...

Parrish_Crooks

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Hey... I said I couldn't skip to that scene... not skip the scene...

Haha.... my bad! So sick of fast forwarding to that scene......

rizzla

The fact that it was meant as a tv series meant that there was about 8 hours of footage dropped, I remember reading somewhere. It was just hacked and slashed into a 2hourish film with no regard to plot, people will try and find meaning where there really is none. If he did a directors commentary and discussed why he did it in this or that way then I would add some credibility to it.

As I said earlier mind fu#kery for mind fu#kery's sake!

SuperGrover

Was that not Inland Empire that was supposed to be for TV?

Parrish_Crooks

SuperGrover wrote: »

Was that not Inland Empire that was supposed to be for TV?

Nah It was Mulholland. Was supposed to be a Twin Peaks type series but the network didn't like it.

SuperGrover

Thanks, Parrish, for the clarification.


Re David Lynch - I cannot think of anything he has ever done that has not pleased me greatly.

Then again, I don't think that a neat summing up or slick 'twist' is essential to the overall experience.

He has the ability to just pick me up and take me along with him. I don't spend the whole time doing a mental map of who, why and where.

Watched Eraserhead again lately and really enjoyed the comic surrealism of it all over again.

Sad Professor

rizzla wrote: »

The fact that it was meant as a tv series meant that there was about 8 hours of footage dropped, I remember reading somewhere. It was just hacked and slashed into a 2hourish film with no regard to plot, people will try and find meaning where there really is none.!

That's rubbish. It was supposed to be a 2 hour tv pilot. There was no hacking or slashing, Lynch simply shot additional footage to make it into a self contained movie. Most of the new scenes are in the last third of the film. It doesn't quite escape it's tv roots which is why I prefer Lost Highway but it still turned out brilliant.

ixoy

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hmm not sure about that. Lost Highway is my least favourite of his 'mad' films, don't really like the tone and actually felt it was more accessiable and more easily interpreted than his other stuff (got a sort of Third Policeman vibe from it).

Agreed. The components justdon't work as well together as some of his other pieces even if the theme of identity, etc. is more clear.

It's
Still a very, very good film (mainly for this, which is one of my favourite scenes of all times, and disturbs the hell out of me no matter how many times I subject myself to it)

I knew what scene that was before clicking on it - classic freaky Lynch. Still not as disturbing as some of the BOB scenes though.

Inland Empire, now there's an inaccessiable film :pac: Two viewings close to each other and I still only have the vaguest of ideas about whats going on. Tend to just get hypnotised by the audio-visual brilliance and forget to pay attention to anything else.

Yes it's quite inaccessible. One moment you're in film studio, then there's a scene with prostitute dancing to "Do the Locomotion" and then you're off watching a family of rabbits in what appears to be hell...
I do seem to recal Lynch saying that there isn't always a correct answer to his movies - that a lot of it is about the experience of the movie and how it makes you feel (one of the reasons he was probably against chapters, as this can counteract the experience).

While his films may be difficult, I think even on first watching I adore them for their sheer technical and artistic brilliance. Sure, Mullholland Drive demands repeat viewings, but the first time still sticks with me as a film very, very unlike anything I'd seen before (was probably only about 15 at the time). That bizarre scene at the theatre (the pandoras box sequence) really sticks with me: a very haunting and accomplished tangent.

Yes, what I get from a lot of his madder movies is those wonderful, beautiful moments that nobody else seems to match. As you rightly point out, the theatre scene in "Mulholland Drive" and the singing of "Llorando" sends shivers down my spine.

I'd argue that "Mulholland Drive" is as much about the experience as it is about more tangible concepts like plot. Yes that might make it too much of an arthouse movie, but those elements work very well for me.

Parrish_Crooks

I also find the scenes towards the end of Camilla breaking up with Diane very powerful and heart wrenching. Think it's Lynch's use of music that really evokes these feelings, in every film.

SuperGrover

I'm not so sure that the films themselves should be seen as "difficult".

Is it not the viewer trying to superimpose their own expectations of how a film formula should work that creates confusion?

The way to watch these films is to surrender oneself to the experience. It's not all that difficult.

johnny_ultimate

ixoy wrote: »

Yes it's quite inaccessible. One moment you're in film studio, then there's a scene with prostitute dancing to "Do the Locomotion" and then you're off watching a family of rabbits in what appears to be hell...
I do seem to recal Lynch saying that there isn't always a correct answer to his movies - that a lot of it is about the experience of the movie and how it makes you feel (one of the reasons he was probably against chapters, as this can counteract the experience).

At least in Mullholland Drive it is very clear when each 'dream' or section ends and begins (although it does begin to blur somewhat towards the end). At the very least, its pretty obvious that the film is divided into the pre and post opening of the box sections. In Inland Empire, that division is never clear, and its hard to figure out what timeline you are watching (the 'Blue Tomorrows' film, Nikki as a prostitute, Nikki as an actress, or those pesky Polish bits..). Mullholland Drive has a reputation of being difficult, but the core structure is quite simple. It is just the plethora of references and smaller confusions that really add to the complexity. Check out the rotten tomatoes boards on the film: really shows how much detail Lynch went into making it, and how much analysis and interpretation it is open to.

Dudess

Absolutely adore that movie and lots of David Lynch stuff. I think the man's a genius.
A film doesn't have to have a coherent plot or an ending that ties up nicely. I recommend watching Lynch's films forgetting about either of the above and just enjoying the experience - and the pure craziness and originality (like Lost Highway: the painted face dude telling Bill Paxton to his face that he's in his house at that moment - fantastic! Or the freaky looking guy at the back of the diner in Mulholland Drive, as already mentioned. The chills that moment gave me made the whole film worthwhile...)

I detest pretension and weird for weird's sake, but I know that's not what David Lynch is trying to do. If he was, the films wouldn't be so lovingly and painstakingly crafted down to the most minute detail. He always chooses the most perfect music (I have two Twin Peaks soundtracks: the TV series and the movie - they are breathtaking), the most perfect cast (including rather unlikely choices which always turn out to be classic performances - who would have thought Dean Stockwell of Quantum Leap fame could have portrayed evil so fantastically in Blue Velvet? Or has-been 70s TV actor Robert Blake as the aforementioned scary white-faced man in Lost Highway - a character that never ceases to make me shudder) and the atmospherics, the brilliance and originality of those random scenes.

The man is out on his own. Mullholland Drive - brilliant.

SuperGrover

What Dudess said

Shryke

I'm not going to write a long winded post explaining why I don't like this film as others have done, I'm just going to say it is not entertainment. It is not engaging. It's well acted and put together and that is all the credit I can give to it. I haven't read the whole thread so shoot me if this has been said a hundred times but it's more pretentious than anything else. I didn't care for the characters or give a damn what was going on.
I had an argument with a friend about this and they called me low brow for not appreciating it... good luck to them. I'll take Terminator 2 over this bag of ****!

PS. IMO.

Parrish_Crooks

Dudess wrote: »

He always chooses the most perfect music (I have two Twin Peaks soundtracks: the TV series and the movie - they are breathtaking)

You should pick up the Mulholland Drive Score, it's unbelievable. Even includes those two audition songs played out in front of the director.

Khannie

Parrish_Crooks wrote: »

Got the idea from another thread!

I lay claim to being your muse!

Balls says I!

Poll ftw!

Parrish_Crooks

Khannie wrote: »

I lay claim to being your muse!

Balls says I!

Poll ftw!

Poll added!