Mulholland Drive

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by dissention

I didn't think it was too bad. I laughed my ass off when the hit man killed that guy for the black book and accidentally shot a fat woman in the ass through a wall when he was wiping his prints from the gun.

"Ah! Something bit me!"

Or how about that boardroom meeting in the beginning with the old boss guy and his damned espresso? That scene had me rolling, it was just so absurd. I think that was Lynch's satiracle take on those industry types.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Exactly what I thought the movie was ! Rubbish. And so many called it art.

The critics don't want to look bad or unhip by calling it the mess that it is.

Originally Posted by sparky

It lost me very quickly. I don't remember when it was that the damned thing fell apart. Considering the slapdash way it was thrown together, I think the whole thing was an accident. People talk about it as if it was some grandly structured and executed piece de resistance. Hogwash. It had some fascinating imagery. But so does an oil slick on a wet city street. At least THAT isn't confusing. Street Angel makes more sense than this thing.

You can spot exactly where the TV pilot ends and the newly shot scenes begin: as soon as Watts and Harring jump into the sack together. Then the movie falls apart. It's a complete failure of filmmaking, but it's still ridiculously engrossing. It is slapdash, from beginning to end.

And how about Ann Miller's face?

Originally Posted by sparky

I resented the hell out of this movie, and would have walked out if I had been alone. All that, and I didn't even pay to see it.

It is the absolute height of Hollywood insider masturbatory back slapping that this swill was nominated for awards. Lynch must have been peeing all over himself at fooling everyone.

He added insult to injury by including an insert on the DVD that told you to look for the clues that would unlock the mysteries to the movie. ****ing asshole.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

You know, I never thought about this...but how does it have anything to do with the meaning of the movie?

It doesn't. He also says to look for red lampshades, ashtrays, and other such ****.

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Yeah, this film is a total mystery to me. I get the theme of dashed dreams in magical mystical Hollywood [you know Lynch has a total fixation with Hollywood being the land where dreams come true ] but some of it doesn't make sense. He said that he wanted to make a lesbian love story, which if you ask me, was quite unconvincing.

The tagline was something along the lines of "A Love Story in Hollywood." He's full of hot air. Bless Isabella Rossellini for being able to put up with him.

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Diss, have you ever seen Bergman's Persona? I think Lynch was riffing HEAVILY on this movie.

Yup. I never thought about it that way, though, you might be right. I can't say I'm a big Bergman fan, in all honesty. I'm still amazed at the sheer awfulness of The Virgin Spring.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm still amazed at the sheer awfulness of The Virgin Spring.

a.k.a. Last House on the Left. John Carpenter must've been a Bergman fan. Unless he's a fan of the original ballad that TVS was based on, The Daughter of Tore of Vange, but somehow I doubt it.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by sparky

Exactly what I thought the movie was ! Rubbish. And so many called it art.

It lost me very quickly. I don't remember when it was that the damned thing fell apart. Considering the slapdash way it was thrown together, I think the whole thing was an accident. People talk about it as if it was some grandly structured and executed piece de resistance. Hogwash. It had some fascinating imagery. But so does an oil slick on a wet city street. At least THAT isn't confusing. Street Angel makes more sense than this thing.

I resented the hell out of this movie, and would have walked out if I had been alone. All that, and I didn't even pay to see it.

It is the absolute height of Hollywood insider masturbatory back slapping that this swill was nominated for awards. Lynch must have been peeing all over himself at fooling everyone.

I'm not sure is art, but it's a good movie for me. I don't see much a problem with how it's done, it's nothing new from Nouvelle Vague, especially some Godard movies, so I don't understand the kind of reasoning "it's hogwash because I don't understand it"; it's impossible to control everything we watch, IMO. Anyway, there's always the reassuring Alexander Payne, California and two hours of people talking of wine, no?

Romy

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yup. I never thought about it that way, though, you might be right. I can't say I'm a big Bergman fan, in all honesty. I'm still amazed at the sheer awfulness of The Virgin Spring.

And I thought in 30 years you'd be like Isak Borg in Wild Strawberries...

Romy

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by hayley

Actually, it's not nearly as smart as The Limey. It's Sugar and Spice. Hee. I <3 that movie. Have you ever seen it? She has black hair, and is obsessed with boning Conan O'Brien.

I spent several hours at work last week cutting out pictures of her from Amityville Horror ads and reviews, defacing them, and putting them together in a nice collection on my bulletin board.

I LOVE Sugar And Spice!
And Melissa George is just bleugh. Funnily enough we were talking about her in the office today. I've just started watching Alias and NO WAY would Michael Vartan to married to her!

Edit: forgot to say, I think Mullholland Drive is genius, but I too have no clue what it's about. I need to watch it again those to see if it's still as puzzling as I remember it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Serrart

And I thought in 30 years you'd be like Isak Borg in Wild Strawberries...

Romy

Oh, how observant.

I'm not the cynic Borg was, I simply declare something to be **** when it's obvious to me that it is.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Serrart

I'm not sure is art, but it's a good movie for me. I don't see much a problem with how it's done, it's nothing new from Nouvelle Vague, especially some Godard movies, so I don't understand the kind of reasoning "it's hogwash because I don't understand it"; it's impossible to control everything we watch, IMO.

We're comparing Lynch to Godard now? I suppose if one were to equate the two, Novelle Vague is the perfect piece of "art film" trash to do it with. That thing has to be one of Godard's worst. It has nothing to do with the narrative (or lack thereof), it has to do with the sheer amount of half-baked ideas to be found in it. Nothing becomes a whole. At least Mulholland Drive can declare victory in that arena, no matter how incomprehensible it may be from narrative standpoint.

Mulholland Drive is hogwash simply because it's pretentious bull**** masquerading as brilliant art, the same as Nouvelle Vague. I enjoyed it for the absurd crap that it is, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Serrart

Anyway, there's always the reassuring Alexander Payne, California and two hours of people talking of wine, no?

As opposed to David Lynch and his two hours of cinematic masturbation? Yup.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Serrart

I don't understand the kind of reasoning "it's hogwash because I don't understand it?

It's hogwash because NO ONE understands it, and there was no plan behind it. This is so close to Dadism it isn't even funny. If your audience needs a guide book to understand the meaning of your art, as Rolling Stone once said of Stevie Nicks, "Whose fault is that ?"

He might as well have tossed four buckets of Dunn Edwards at a wall and called it a painting. I think he was just lazy and cocky.

[amber]

Originally Posted by amber

yeah, I figured it out. It's a vanity piece for David Lynch to be weird for weird's sake, and it is utterly incomprehensible. Did that clear things up?

I'm gonna have to quote myself on this one, because I think I said it best.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by dissention

We're comparing Lynch to Godard now? I suppose if one were to equate the two, Novelle Vague is the perfect piece of "art film" trash to do it with. That thing has to be one of Godard's worst. It has nothing to do with the narrative (or lack thereof), it has to do with the sheer amount of half-baked ideas to be found in it. Nothing becomes a whole. At least Mulholland Drive can declare victory in that arena, no matter how incomprehensible it may be from narrative standpoint.

Mulholland Drive is hogwash simply because it's pretentious bull**** masquerading as brilliant art, the same as Nouvelle Vague. I enjoyed it for the absurd crap that it is, nothing more.

Narrativity in a movie is a convention. A narrative movie is the most wide spread form of films, but it's not the only one, as all the vanguards have shown. There wouldn't have been Hitchcock without surrealism, for example. Lynch can do different, or a mixture of various forms and equally well (when he wants to), IMO.

Originally Posted by dissention

As opposed to David Lynch and his two hours of cinematic masturbation? Yup.

I'd say exactly the same of Sideways (which I liked by the way). It gives exactly that feeling of fulfilling intellectualism that many so called "new directors" sell so well.

Romy

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by sparky

It's hogwash because NO ONE understands it, and there was no plan behind it. This is so close to Dadism it isn't even funny. If your audience needs a guide book to understand the meaning of your art, as Rolling Stone once said of Stevie Nicks, "Whose fault is that ?"

He might as well have tossed four buckets of Dunn Edwards at a wall and called it a painting. I think he was just lazy and cocky.

As far as I know Dadaism according to Tzara's manifesto was meant to be an attack to society's conventions. Personally I wouldn't say Mulholland Drive is dadaist, but probably it wanted to create a sense of uneasiness in the audience. Not all the directors feel the urge to nest their public, sometimes a confrontational relationship can be very interesting too, I think.

Romy

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Serrart

Lynch can do different, or a mixture of various forms and equally well (when he wants to), IMO.

Of course he can do different things in his movies that challenge the audience, but doing those things well is an entirely different ballgame. He certainly didn't pull it off with Mulholland Drive. I'm not about to congratulate him simply because he did something outside of the norm in terms of filmmaking, because the end result came out half-baked. I'll reserve my praise for something like Greenaway's Tulse Luper Suitcase; something that is completely different and original and done well, not put together in a slapdash manner for those who think they're in the loop to praise.

Originally Posted by Serrart

I'd say exactly the same of Sideways (which I liked by the way). It gives exactly that feeling of fulfilling intellectualism that many so called "new directors" sell so well.

And I'd disagree. If we want to look at Alexander Payne as a "new director" that tries to fulfill his audiences desires with intellectualism, by all means do so. He makes movies that are funny on an intellectual level (Citizen Ruth proved as much), but he doesn't permeate his movies with an air of pretentiousness like David Lynch does. I wouldn't confuse intellectualism in films with self-congratulatory backslapping, but that's just me.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course he can do different things in his movies that challenge the audience, but doing those things well is an entirely different ballgame. He certainly didn't pull it off with Mulholland Drive. I'm not about to congratulate him simply because he did something outside of the norm in terms of filmmaking, because the end result came out half-baked. I'll reserve my praise for something like Greenaway's Tulse Luper Suitcase; something that is completely different and original and done well, not put together in a slapdash manner for those who think they're in the loop to praise.


And I'd disagree. If we want to look at Alexander Payne as a "new director" that tries to fulfill his audiences desires with intellectualism, by all means do so. He makes movies that are funny on an intellectual level (Citizen Ruth proved as much), but he doesn't permeate his movies with an air of pretentiousness like David Lynch does. I wouldn't confuse intellectualism in films with self-congratulatory backslapping, but that's just me.

A gold star for you today.