Lost Highway
cinde...@canadamail.com
Okay, maybe I'm not as smart as the people that understand David
Lynch's stuff.
So....can I just say....what the hell happened in "Lost Highway"....I
didn't get it.....so many scenes, and people, and shit....usually I
like that, but David Lynch is just too much like a jigsaw puzzle that
isn't put together yet....
I know I'm supposed to figure it out for myself but I'd like to know
what people that have seen it think....
John Roca
Yeah, "Lost Highway" really was a sucky movie. Lynch's work has gone
progressively downhill ever since "Eraserhead" (then again, how do you
follow up a masterpeice like "Eraserhead?").
Insofar as "Lost Highway" is concerned, while the beginning of the film
retains some of Lynch's lost genius, it degenerates into a self-indulgent
mess of weirdness for weirdness' sake...it's sort of sorry to see how far
he has fallen.
--
"A screaming comes across the sky"
-Thomas Pynchon-
CarmelKidd
>So....can I just say....what the hell happened in "Lost Highway"....I
>didn't get it.....so many scenes, and people, and shit....usually I
>like that, but David Lynch is just too much like a jigsaw puzzle that
>isn't put together yet....
>
>I know I'm supposed to figure it out for myself but I'd like to know
>what people that have seen it think....
>
>
>
>
So you liked that movie too, So did I so to speak....and I also have alot of
questions about that movie.
I heard it mention that Robert Blake played the "Angel of death" in Lost
Highway.. But to me in that movie Robert blakes character seem more
sinister....like make he was some kind of demon or maybe the Devil himself.
The movie seems to have elements of other movies like Exorcist III, and Jacob's
ladder..that I think Lynch bollowed from. Indeed I bet alot of hollywood types
get there ideas from forums like this..
Maybe the movie is about reincarnation.....the most disturbing scenes take
place at the end of the movies..when he ( Bill pullman) is trying to escape
from the police from a murder he committed(?) . He runs with the cops on his
tale, down a highway in the desert. As a viewer you get the sense of
futility...because there is literally no escape. Next You see the character
(Pullman) writhing in pain and agony, and his face becomes distorted and flames
appear around him...gee is the guy literally in Hell? His face looked burned
and charred as if he had been in the electric chair..... Perhaps he was..
Maybe the guy was just reliving a murder, I mean could you imagine a worse hell
than having to re-live a murder like the one in Lost Highway for eternity?
holy melted one
I l,oved Lost Highway and Lynch is my favorite director. I think I
state that in every post. Here is my take on Lost Highway, though it's
not correct because Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable because it
echos reality and in reality everything shouldn't be easily explained.
Bill Pullman's character kills his wife. He says that he likes to
remember things his own way "not necessarily the way they happened" --
explaining why he doesn't recall her murder. Blake's character is a
mystery to me but the closest I've ever come is to think that it is a
representation of Pullman's dementia. After Pullman winds up in jail he
tries to relive his life. He dreams himself turning into a young guy
(Getty) and is let out of prison, this is just a dream. His dream
continues and he tries to lead a normal, decent life but he's too
mentally warped to allow that to happen. So even in his dream which he
tried to make a Utopic imaginary life for himself, he falls into the
same pattern of his real life. I'd have to view it again, I haven't
seen it in months, in order to give a better explanation.
The moral of the story --- Evil is stronger than good.
In article <67nmtf$d...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, cinde...@canadamail.com
says...
>
>Okay, maybe I'm not as smart as the people that understand David
>Lynch's stuff.
>
J.J. Hunsecker
> Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable
Lost Highway is unexplainable....because Lynch himself can't explain it.
He deliberatly painted himself in a corner. No wonder he can't get
backing for any more films.
J.J. Hunsecker
>
Todd
Just thought I'd clarify that. Dick Lurant is dead.
Todd
John Roca
In a previous article, Rob...@Johnson.com (robert) says:
> Hey , thats from "Gravity's Rainbow" right? I never could get
>into Pynchon. I have "Slow Learner" , "Gravity's Rainbow" , "V" and
>"The Crying Of Lot 49". Is his more recent book better?
Yeah, it is...it's the first line from the novel. Mason & Dixon is not bad
at all, but not as good as Gravity's Rainbow (then again, few books are).
In any event, if gravity's Rainbow were ever filmed it could very well be
the ultimate cult film...any ideas about form, direction, actors, etc.?
Stacey Holbrook
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 cinde...@canadamail.com wrote:
> Okay, maybe I'm not as smart as the people that understand David
> Lynch's stuff.
>
> So....can I just say....what the hell happened in "Lost Highway"....I
> didn't get it.....so many scenes, and people, and shit....usually I
> like that, but David Lynch is just too much like a jigsaw puzzle that
> isn't put together yet....
>
> I know I'm supposed to figure it out for myself but I'd like to know
> what people that have seen it think....
I didn't understand it. I viewed it as a visit to an altered state of
consciousness. I'm not sure it was meant to be appreciated on a conscious
level. I think it would have been a bit more satisfying if Lynch had
attempted to add a tiny bit more structure.
Stacey (au...@netdoor.com)
Wolfgang Falck
## Originalempfaenger: /alt/cult-movies
In article <jHSn.65$MH3.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net>,
apos...@ptd.net (holy melted one) wrote:
> I l,oved Lost Highway and Lynch is my favorite director. I think I
> state that in every post. Here is my take on Lost Highway, though it's
> not correct because Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable because it
> echos reality and in reality everything shouldn't be easily explained.
>
> Bill Pullman's character kills his wife. He says that he likes to
> remember things his own way "not necessarily the way they happened" --
> explaining why he doesn't recall her murder. Blake's character is a
> mystery to me but the closest I've ever come is to think that it is a
> representation of Pullman's dementia. After Pullman winds up in jail he
> tries to relive his life. He dreams himself turning into a young guy
> (Getty) and is let out of prison, this is just a dream. His dream
> continues and he tries to lead a normal, decent life but he's too
> mentally warped to allow that to happen. So even in his dream which he
> tried to make a Utopic imaginary life for himself, he falls into the
> same pattern of his real life. I'd have to view it again, I haven't
> seen it in months, in order to give a better explanation.
>
> The moral of the story --- Evil is stronger than good.
>
Ok as English is not my native language this might be a tricky approach to
explain something even the director doesn't want to. But Here I go.
To me it seems quite possible that the second part of the movie is just
an escape dream but I noticed that maybe the most interesting approach
to view the movie is following the circular time line from:
1. Pullman hearing: 'Dick Laurent's dead'
2. The Shack reversly exploding for the first time from where on the movie
just leads Pullman's charakter back fullfilling what not happened till
then.
3. going back home voicing: 'Dick Laurent's dead' closing the circle.
In this approach Robert Blake's Charakter maybe the devil himself
torturing the lost(sold) soul of Bill Pullman forever. Maybe this is just
another Faustian tale of someone who sold his soul for maybe virtousity on
the Saxophone which quite obviously the younger Charakter played by Getty?
can't stand maybe subconciously (spelling anyone) knowing for what he is
damned to travel the lost Highway forever!
Anyway it is very fascinating how many good explanations there are for
what is going on in the movie. I admit I love it
Bye
Wolf
| The opinions expressed above are of
| course my own. Share them now as long
Wo...@Wonko.prima.ruhr.de | as you are free to do so. Someday there
| might be no other choice!
Michael Brooke
J.J. Hunsecker <edd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable
>
> Lost Highway is unexplainable....because Lynch himself can't explain it.
And Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali deliberately rejected any ideas and
images in 'Un Chien Andalou' that had any rational explanation. And
like Lynch, they knew exactly what they were doing.
I'm a little wary of using the term 'Surrealist' here, partly because
Lynch isn't a member of a Surrealist group (unlike, say, Bunuel, Dali or
Jan Svankmajer, the only current director whose imagination and grasp of
dream-logic matches Lynch's), and partly because the adjective 'surreal'
has become so debased and misused - but it seems to me that Lynch's
entire career has been based on genuine Surrealist principles.
Like Bunuel, Dali and Svankmajer, Lynch works entirely from instinct and
his unconscious mind. This means that he *can't* explain his work - or
at least he can't explain its ramifications. I doubt very much you
could "explain" a typical dream: I know I can't.
And that's why Lynch can't explain 'Lost Highway'. And he doesn't need
to - the film makes perfect sense on its own terms provided you approach
it as a waking dream. Most of the images can in fact be interpreted
pretty convincingly (I wrote just such an interpretation in this
newsgroup about three months ago, and you're welcome to dig it up via
DejaNews) - it's just that when you try to put them together they slip
from your grasp, because Lynch has deliberately fractured the narrative
so that no one single interpretation makes perfect sense. Again, this
is just like a dream.
Many people don't like this approach to film-making because they like
everything to be neatly pigeonholed. Many people whose opinions I
respect rather more than our friend here have rejected 'Lost Highway'
because it didn't say anything to them. Several perfectly sane and
rational people (probably *too* sane and rational, under the
circumstances!) reject Surrealism in general, for the same reason.
Personally, I've seen 'Lost Highway' three times (twice on the big
screen, where it really needs to be seen), and I haven't been bored yet,
despite its two-and-a-quarter-hour running time. And I think the reason
I haven't been bored (in fact, perversely enough, I've enjoyed it more
every time!) is that it works for me on exactly the kind of subconscious
level that Lynch presumably intended it to work. And I can't explain
*why* it works like that - I just know that it does. It feels, in some
perverse way, "right".
> He deliberatly painted himself in a corner. No wonder he can't get
> backing for any more films.
Well, I'm not surprised at that - but I don't necessarily interpret your
first comment as negative criticism. Nor, I suspect, would Lynch!
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
Next 14 films showing: Smoke, Blue in the Face, Kitchen, Cinema
Paradiso, Il Postino, The Immortal Story, The English Patient,
Orphee, Beauty and the Beast [Cocteau], His Girl Friday,
Bringing Up Baby, Blade Runner, Metropolis, The Big Sleep
[All opinions expressed above are my own!]
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Roca
In a previous article, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) says:
>J.J. Hunsecker <edd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> > Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable
>>
>> Lost Highway is unexplainable....because Lynch himself can't explain it.
>
>And Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali deliberately rejected any ideas and
>images in 'Un Chien Andalou' that had any rational explanation. And
>like Lynch, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Whoah!!!! You are sort of comparing Jackson Pollack to Cy Twombley here.
While it is indeed true that Un Chien Andalou purposefully lacks a
"rational explanation", you have to keep in mind that Bunuel made that film
in the midst of, and under the influence of, the Dadaist movement. One of
dada's methods was the anti-narrative, anti-aesthetic technique.
As wonderful as Eraserhead is it's coming from another viewpoint entirely.
As obscure as it is, there is the semblance of a narrative or plot there.
>I'm a little wary of using the term 'Surrealist' here, partly because
>Lynch isn't a member of a Surrealist group (unlike, say, Bunuel, Dali or
>Jan Svankmajer, the only current director whose imagination and grasp of
>dream-logic matches Lynch's), and partly because the adjective 'surreal'
>has become so debased and misused - but it seems to me that Lynch's
>entire career has been based on genuine Surrealist principles.
I would agree with you that that is where he originally came from. But he
left it all behind after Eraserhead.
>Many people don't like this approach to film-making because they like
>everything to be neatly pigeonholed. Many people whose opinions I
>respect rather more than our friend here have rejected 'Lost Highway'
>because it didn't say anything to them. Several perfectly sane and
>rational people (probably *too* sane and rational, under the
>circumstances!) reject Surrealism in general, for the same reason.
No. The problem is that Lost Highway fails as surealism, just as
Eraserhead triumphs as a masterpiece of surrealism. The self-indulgence
and self-consience of Lynch's effort in Lost Highway made me think that
Lynch was just sitting around thinking: "gee, what kind of weird shit can I
do next?"
The effect in Eraserhead is exactly the opposite. Lynch masterfully
combined a sense of innocence and nonchalance here that is captivating, and
appealing on a subconscious level, just like a dream...and just as Lost
Highway doesn't come close to achieving.
Luis Canau
nos...@radix.net (kevin king) wrote:
[...]
>Although I don't think Lynch's scriptwriting is at all as arbitrary as
>suggested above, I do agree that Lost Highway fails where Eraserhead
>succeeds. [...]
You might compare whatever you want to compare, but what do you have similar
in Eraserhead and Lost Highway? Eraserhead is a surreal film with a structure
of a nightmare, in my oppinion. Lost Highway is, in some ways, a very
conventional movie in what concerns narrative. Wait, don't call me crazy
yet... What happens with this movie is that a lot was removed from the script
to let the viewer fill the blanks. I don't think it's impossible to make sense
of it. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I wouldn't say people who don't
like it don't "get it". Some don't bother, some fell into the movie buy
accident, some don't like it. I'm pretty sure the little girls behing me the
first time I saw it didn't "get it", but that's because they must have thought
it was some kind of "Pretty Woman" movie, or something.
I read a script of "Blue Velvet" which was a LOT more explainable that the
actual movie came to be. I picture it would be very easy to make a movie more
similar in structure to what LH ended being. It would mean just "removing"
some more things placed there to allow the viewer to get orientation.
[...]
> As much as I respect M.B.'s postings to
>this group, I can't fathom why he continues defending such a
>ridiculous film as if it were a masterpiece yet to be appreciated. [...]
Understanding why other people like what they like it's not that important. LH
was one of my favourite movies this year, as it was to most of my friends
(others hated too, that's normal, but they don't worry very much to understand
us...), I saw it twice and I will bought it as soon as I know it is on a
letterboxed video.
[...]
> to claim that Lost Highway wasn't liked because it was difficult is both
>missing the point and a bit of an insult. (although if you said the
>same thing about Crash (and I think you would), I'd likely agree).
When people say they don't liked because it didn't make any sense, or it
"sucked" or it was stupid, or something like that, it's easy to say they don't
get the point. But like Michael said (I think, maybe it was another poster),
this was not a movie where it was very important to "get" the point.
As for "Crash", there was nothing to get, I think.The movie was very linear,
and I'm glad I saw it long before all the fuss in the UK and the US.
Luis Canau___________________________________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (in Portuguese)
P r o - w i d e s c r e e n
_____________________________________________________________________
Kilgore Trout
RE: Re: Lost Highway
BY: "J.J. Hunsecker" <edd...@earthlink.net>
->> Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable
->
->Lost Highway is unexplainable....because Lynch himself can't explain it.
-> He deliberatly painted himself in a corner. No wonder he can't get
->backing for any more films.
->J.J. Hunsecker
I think Lynch forgets to make notes to himself about what the hell the
point of his projects are. I like most of his stuff (except what he did
to Dune), but it seems like he comes up with very imaginitive scenes,
manages to get original and interesting characterizations from his
actors, totally sucks the veiwer into feeling they are seeing something
totally unique, THEN FORGETS WHERE THE FUCK HE WAS HEADED WITH THE WHOLE
DAMN THING.
-Kilgore Trout-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Any replys must have the (username) tag at the end of the email address. If
this is not included, then the email will not reach its destination. The
username is located after the email address in the title.
Origin: Alpha Centauri BBS * 609-227-2101 * @600.FILEnet
kevin king
>nos...@radix.net (kevin king) wrote:
>
>[...]
>>Although I don't think Lynch's scriptwriting is at all as arbitrary as
>>suggested above, I do agree that Lost Highway fails where Eraserhead
>>succeeds. [...]
>
>You might compare whatever you want to compare, but what do you have similar
>in Eraserhead and Lost Highway? Eraserhead is a surreal film with a structure
>of a nightmare, in my oppinion. Lost Highway is, in some ways, a very
>conventional movie in what concerns narrative. Wait, don't call me crazy
>yet... What happens with this movie is that a lot was removed from the script
>to let the viewer fill the blanks. I don't think it's impossible to make sense
>of it. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I wouldn't say people who don't
>like it don't "get it". Some don't bother, some fell into the movie buy
>accident, some don't like it.
You may be right in implying that a point to point comparison with
Eraserhead isn't useful. But I disagree with your assessment of Lost
Highway's script. I doubt it's construction was so simple. Oddly
enough, it seems to me that most viewers who praise LH are the ones
who attempt a more or less linear plot line, and compare accuracies
with others. Whereas, the viewers who realize that individual
multiple interpretations far outweigh any decided upon heirarchy of
accurate versions within the illogic of the film tend to dismiss it as
an empty structural game. I'm clearly among the latter... but I'd
have to question which of those groups 'get' or 'don't get' the film.
>[...]
>> As much as I respect M.B.'s postings to
>>this group, I can't fathom why he continues defending such a
>>ridiculous film as if it were a masterpiece yet to be appreciated. [...]
>
>Understanding why other people like what they like it's not that important.
I think 'why' someone likes or dislikes something is most important.
I often agree with Michael and am awaiting his in-depth web pages on
Svankmajer (!) I'm also a long-time Bunuel fan... so my complete
disagreement with him on this sparked a response, that's all.
The audio/visual experience of LH is enough to recommend it imo. But
if you expect more from a film, as LH has the pretense of delivering,
it fails on many levels. As a fan of both surrealism and challenging
double helix plots (one of my favorite novels is Paul Auster's New
York Trilogy.. and a (guilty) favorite author is Peter Ackroyd) I
consider myself to be prime audience for this sort of film... but Lost
Highway not only doesn't deliver, it laughably just doesn't work at
times. The last 15 minutes alone should be enough to erase the word
'masterpiece' from anyone's description.
kevin
Michael Brooke
John Roca <hq...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> In a previous article, mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) says:
>
> >J.J. Hunsecker <edd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Lynch said Lost Highway is unexplainable
> >>
> >> Lost Highway is unexplainable....because Lynch himself can't explain it.
> >
> >And Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali deliberately rejected any ideas and
> >images in 'Un Chien Andalou' that had any rational explanation. And
> >like Lynch, they knew exactly what they were doing.
>
> Whoah!!!! You are sort of comparing Jackson Pollack to Cy Twombley here.
> While it is indeed true that Un Chien Andalou purposefully lacks a
> "rational explanation", you have to keep in mind that Bunuel made that film
> in the midst of, and under the influence of, the Dadaist movement.
Dadaism was a spent force years before 'Un Chien Andalou' was made, and
neither Bunuel nor Dali were formally involved with the Surrealists when
they made the film.
> One of
> dada's methods was the anti-narrative, anti-aesthetic technique.
And your point is?
> As wonderful as Eraserhead is it's coming from another viewpoint entirely.
> As obscure as it is, there is the semblance of a narrative or plot there.
Actually, 'Eraserhead' seems to me to be entirely in line with the vast
majority of Bunuel's and Jan Svankmajer's films - most of which have
plots (or at least a reasonably conventional linear narrative structure)
as well.
Surrealism most certainly doesn't preclude narrative - Svankmajer
reckons 'Conspirators of Pleasure' is his most purely Surrealist film
(and as a practising Surrealist for nearly three decades, he should
certainly know what he's talking about!), but it's remarkably
straightforward on a narrative level.
> >I'm a little wary of using the term 'Surrealist' here, partly because
> >Lynch isn't a member of a Surrealist group (unlike, say, Bunuel, Dali or
> >Jan Svankmajer, the only current director whose imagination and grasp of
> >dream-logic matches Lynch's), and partly because the adjective 'surreal'
> >has become so debased and misused - but it seems to me that Lynch's
> >entire career has been based on genuine Surrealist principles.
>
> I would agree with you that that is where he originally came from. But he
> left it all behind after Eraserhead.
He most certainly did not - have you actually *seen* 'Fire Walk With Me'
and 'Lost Highway'? Or even substantial chunks of 'Blue Velvet'? The
first two in particular come about as close to my idea of pure
Surrealism as almost any recent film I can think of (Svankmajer's
'Faust' and 'Conspirators of Pleasure' are just about the only two other
titles that spring to mind). In fact, 'Fire Walk With Me' and 'Lost
Highway' go rather further than 'Eraserhead' in many ways.
>
> >Many people don't like this approach to film-making because they like
> >everything to be neatly pigeonholed. Many people whose opinions I
> >respect rather more than our friend here have rejected 'Lost Highway'
> >because it didn't say anything to them. Several perfectly sane and
> >rational people (probably *too* sane and rational, under the
> >circumstances!) reject Surrealism in general, for the same reason.
>
> No. The problem is that Lost Highway fails as surealism, just as
> Eraserhead triumphs as a masterpiece of surrealism. The self-indulgence
> and self-consience of Lynch's effort in Lost Highway made me think that
> Lynch was just sitting around thinking: "gee, what kind of weird shit can I
> do next?"
I'd have agreed with you before I saw 'Fire Walk With Me' and 'Lost
Highway', having been very disappointed with 'Wild at Heart' (still by
far his weakest film, IMHO) and most of the later 'Twin Peaks' episodes.
But the two most recent features certainly don't strike me as being
self-indulgent and self-conscious - in fact, what's most remarkable
about them is the extent to which Lynch is clearly relying on his
unconscious mind to supply many of the most telling details. Lynch
himself says that these two films come closer to what he originally had
in his head than anything else he's done.
Believe me, I've seen enough genuinely self-indulgent, self-conscious
crap to last me a lifetime (having had to watch God knows how many film
school shorts as part of my previous job), and I can certainly tell the
difference between them and Lynch's most recent work.
> The effect in Eraserhead is exactly the opposite. Lynch masterfully
> combined a sense of innocence and nonchalance here that is captivating, and
> appealing on a subconscious level, just like a dream...and just as Lost
> Highway doesn't come close to achieving.
On the contrary, I'd argue that it actually does a better job on that
score than 'Eraserhead', which has several stunning moments but which to
me looks rather more self-conscious than his later work (I suspect the
fact that it was his debut feature probably explains that). After three
viewings, 'Lost Highway' is still as tantalising and mesmerising as it
was the first time - and it's extremely rare for me to like a film more
the third time round than I did the first!
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
Next 13 films showing: Kitchen, Cinema Paradiso, Il Postino,
The Immortal Story, The English Patient, Orphee,
Beauty and the Beast [Cocteau], His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby, Blade
Runner, Metropolis, The Big Sleep, North By Northwest
Michael Brooke
Stacey Holbrook <au...@netdoor.com> wrote:
You mean a tiny bit more *conventional* structure. 'Lost Highway' is
actually a very tightly structured piece of work - it's just that by
removing the elements that audiences normally look for to aid
navigation, it appears to be completely random to people who aren't
prepared to delve beneath the surface a little.
Michael Brooke
kevin king <nos...@radix.net> wrote:
>
> Although I don't think Lynch's scriptwriting is at all as arbitrary as
> suggested above,
In this case, quite the reverse - subsequent viewings of 'Lost Highway'
reveal more and more subtle connections. There's no question Lynch knew
exactly what he was doing.
> I do agree that Lost Highway fails where Eraserhead
> succeeds. In just considering the humor in each... I find myself
> laughing WITH Eraserhead while laughing AT Lost Highway despite it's
> artful juxtaposition of sensualities (particularly towards the end)...
> and that's a key difference.
Much of 'Lost Highway' is intentionally funny - particularly the middle
section. I don't think it's necessarily any more absurd than
'Eraserhead'. I laughed out loud frequently during 'Lost Highway', but
at no point did I feel I was reacting in a way that Lynch would find
surprising or distressing.
> As much as I respect M.B.'s postings to
> this group, I can't fathom why he continues defending such a
> ridiculous film as if it were a masterpiece yet to be appreciated.
I'm certainly defending it against charges of being ridiculous, because
it isn't! And I genuinely don't think I've ever used the word
"masterpiece" to describe 'Lost Highway'.
> I still cringe at comparisons to Bunuel or Svankmajer. ...
Why? Lynch is operating on exactly the same wavelength, and achieving
very similar results. At no point have I ever claimed - as you imply -
that 'Lost Highway' is as good as the best Bunuel or Svankmajer films,
because I don't think it is. But in terms of genuine adventurousness
and risk-taking it was light years ahead of just about anything else
produced in the English language last year.
(and I don't make comparisons with Bunuel and Svankmajer lightly - I've
seen most of the former's films, and all of the latter's, often several
times!)
> and to claim
> that Lost Highway wasn't liked because it was difficult is both
> missing the point and a bit of an insult.
Not at all. 'Lost Highway' is a highly unconventional film with a
highly unconventional narrative and thematic structure. This makes it
difficult. People who weren't prepared to make the effort to accept the
film on its own terms and who therefore dismissed it are therefore
disliking the film because it was difficult.
Bear in mind that I'm purely talking about those people who claimed that
'Lost Highway' "didn't make sense" (or words to that effect) and
dismissed it for that reason, or claimed that Lynch was just being
self-consciously weird in order to con his audience - and there are
plenty of examples! I freely concede that people may have disliked it
for other reasons (I loathed Peter Greenaway's 'The Baby of Macon',
though am quite prepared to concede that in terms of structure and
content it was as strong as ever) - but I can't think of any other
recent film that has attracted quite such unjustified criticism in terms
of its alleged "incoherence" and "incomprehensibility". I repeat: THE
FILM MAKES SENSE. It's just a different kind of "sense" to that which
we're used to.
I do sympathise with the critics to a certain extent - films like 'Lost
Highway' are a nightmare to analyse on paper, because the slipperiness
of the narrative rather militates against any such pinning down. Two
critics on this side of the Atlantic have named it as their best film of
the year, but have been noticeably unable to explain *why*!
Michael Brooke
Kilgore Trout <us...@alpha.centauri.bbs> wrote:
> I think Lynch forgets to make notes to himself about what the hell the
> point of his projects are. I like most of his stuff (except what he did
> to Dune), but it seems like he comes up with very imaginitive scenes,
> manages to get original and interesting characterizations from his
> actors, totally sucks the veiwer into feeling they are seeing something
> totally unique, THEN FORGETS WHERE THE FUCK HE WAS HEADED WITH THE WHOLE
> DAMN THING.
And how does this apply to 'Lost Highway'? If one thing is absolutely
certain about that particular film, it's that Lynch knew *exactly* what
he was doing, and *exactly* where he was going. It may not have been
where people expected him to go, but that's another issue entirely.
I know no-one believes me, but I genuinely think that 'Lost Highway' is
the most tightly structured and narratively coherent of all genuine
Lynch features (by which I mean projects initiated by Lynch, thus
excluding 'The Elephant Man' and 'Dune'), and this gets more obvious to
me the more I see it.
Bryan Shelton
Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: ...If one thing is absolutely
: certain about that particular film, it's that Lynch knew *exactly* what
: he was doing, and *exactly* where he was going. It may not have been
: where people expected him to go, but that's another issue entirely.
: I know no-one believes me, but I genuinely think that 'Lost Highway' is
: the most tightly structured and narratively coherent of all genuine
: Lynch features....and this gets more obvious to me the more I see it.
Ok, Michael, for the benefit of ALL of us who are baffled by this film,
PLEASE give us your analysis of it! In all seriousness, I look forward
to this with great expectations.
Bryan
Michael Brooke
Bryan Shelton <br...@shell.c-com.net> wrote:
I reposted it a few days ago in the 'Lynch is Lost' thread (though I
retitled it 'Lost Highway Interpretation (repeat from September).
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
Next 12 films showing: Kitchen, The Immortal Story,
The English Patient, Orphee, Beauty and the Beast [Cocteau],
His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby, Blade Runner, Metropolis,
The Big Sleep, North By Northwest, My Own Private Idaho
Stacey Holbrook
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997, Michael Brooke wrote:
(snip)
> > Stacey Holbrook <au...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> > I didn't understand it. I viewed it as a visit to an altered state of
> > consciousness. I'm not sure it was meant to be appreciated on a conscious
> > level. I think it would have been a bit more satisfying if Lynch had
> > attempted to add a tiny bit more structure.
>
> You mean a tiny bit more *conventional* structure. 'Lost Highway' is
> actually a very tightly structured piece of work - it's just that by
> removing the elements that audiences normally look for to aid
> navigation, it appears to be completely random to people who aren't
> prepared to delve beneath the surface a little.
>
> Michael
I have to differ with you about LH being "tightly structured". For me, LH
has a very dreamlike quality where anything could happen at anytime
reguardless of whether or not it makes sense on a conscious level. That is
one of the things I like about LH.
The fact that the pieces of this movie have to be assembled in order to
come up with an interpretation and that it can be assembled in a dozen
different ways indicates that it is rather loosely structured. One of the
things that intrigues me about LH is trying to come up with an
interpretation that fits all the pieces. One idea is that the Bill Pullman
character (Fred?) has a brain tumor and is hallucinating throughout most
of the movie possibly including the murder of his wife (or maybe he
hallucinated her infidelity and murdered her in a rage).
My favorite interpretation is that Fred is an alien masquerading as a
human who has "forgotten" that he is an alien. The movie is about his
deterioration and the attempts by other aliens to communicate with him and
possibly rescue him or destroy him before he blows his cover.
Actually, it isn't hard to find a narrative if you choose to look for one.
For me, the movie works best if I -don't- try and force an interpretation
on it (though it's hard not to try!). LH is like a dream state. About
halfway through the movie I gave up trying to impose linear structure on
it and just absorbed the images.
I enjoy the fact that I can't nail *Lost Highway* down. This makes me
uncomfortable but thats okay. I like movies that make me think or force me
to look at it from different angles. I am constantly reevaluating my
thoughts on this movie so I will probably have a different view tomorrow.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
>
> Next 13 films showing: Kitchen, Cinema Paradiso, Il Postino,
> The Immortal Story, The English Patient, Orphee,
> Beauty and the Beast [Cocteau], His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby, Blade
> Runner, Metropolis, The Big Sleep, North By Northwest
>
> [All opinions expressed above are my own!]
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey (au...@netdoor.com)
Michael Brooke
Stacey Holbrook <au...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>
> I have to differ with you about LH being "tightly structured". For me, LH
> has a very dreamlike quality where anything could happen at anytime
> reguardless of whether or not it makes sense on a conscious level. That is
> one of the things I like about LH.
>
> The fact that the pieces of this movie have to be assembled in order to
> come up with an interpretation and that it can be assembled in a dozen
> different ways indicates that it is rather loosely structured. One of the
> things that intrigues me about LH is trying to come up with an
> interpretation that fits all the pieces.
You can't - and, perversely enough, this is what I mean about it being
"tightly structured". Lynch and co-writer Barry Gifford were very very
careful to make sure that it's absolutely impossible to come up with a
single catch-all "interpretation".
From what I can see they were using a very similar technique to that
which Bunuel and Dali used in 'Un Chien Andalou', though while Bunuel
and Dali merely eliminated all images that had a rational explanation,
Lynch and Gifford made sure that their images fit their basic structure
- but then made sure that there was more than one structure.
The hardest thing to grasp about 'Lost Highway' is that the narrative is
both circular *and* linear - at the same time. And I'd say that one
viewing is nowhere near enough to grasp what Lynch is doing, because you
really have to see the film with advance knowledge of what's going to
happen in order for it to make some kind of "sense" (as I said, I
understood the film far better on a second viewing).
Unfortunately, the film's detractors clearly regret seeing the film
once, so there's not much chance of persuading them to give it another
go!
>
> Actually, it isn't hard to find a narrative if you choose to look for one.
> For me, the movie works best if I -don't- try and force an interpretation
> on it (though it's hard not to try!). LH is like a dream state. About
> halfway through the movie I gave up trying to impose linear structure on
> it and just absorbed the images.
Which is a perfectly valid way of watching it - but I'd still say that
although the content of those images almost certainly came from Lynch's
unconscious mind (in that he would probably have a problem with
explaining precise details), they are actually nailed down into a very
very precise structure - it just isn't what most people would think of
as a conventional narrative structure.
>
> I enjoy the fact that I can't nail *Lost Highway* down. This makes me
> uncomfortable but thats okay. I like movies that make me think or force me
> to look at it from different angles.
And 'Lost Highway' does a better job of that than almost anything else
I've seen recently. And I'm delighted to see that it's appearing on a
surprising number of British critics' 1997 top tens, given the decidedly
mixed reception it had when it opened.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
Next 13 films showing: Kitchen, His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby,
Blade Runner, Metropolis, The Big Sleep, North By Northwest,
My Own Private Idaho, Arizona Dream, Written on the Wind,
Nelly et Monsieur Arnaud, Ma Vie Sexuelle, Stardust Memories
J.J. Hunsecker
Dear Michael,
I gotta nail you for this. I read Stacey's message and she says
she LIKED Lost Highway. And you get on her ass for disagreeing with you
about THE STRUCTURE???!!!!
You're a piece of work, pal.
J.J. Hunsecker
Stacey Holbrook
On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Michael Brooke wrote:
(snip)
> The hardest thing to grasp about 'Lost Highway' is that the narrative is
> both circular *and* linear - at the same time. And I'd say that one
> viewing is nowhere near enough to grasp what Lynch is doing, because you
> really have to see the film with advance knowledge of what's going to
> happen in order for it to make some kind of "sense" (as I said, I
> understood the film far better on a second viewing).
I will definately see it again. For most movies, it is easy to say that
you like it (or not) after only one viewing. I didn't get an automatic
reaction like this after LH. I had to think about it for a while before I
could decide how I felt about it. I have a feeling that LH is the kind of
movie that will engender a different reaction every time it is viewed. I
think that each viewing will add a new layer of perception as to what it
is about.
> Unfortunately, the film's detractors clearly regret seeing the film
> once, so there's not much chance of persuading them to give it another
> go!
*Lost Highway* isn't for everyone. I'm still wondering why so many people
loved *ID4*. To each his own.
(snip)
> > I enjoy the fact that I can't nail *Lost Highway* down. This makes me
> > uncomfortable but thats okay. I like movies that make me think or force me
> > to look at it from different angles.
>
> And 'Lost Highway' does a better job of that than almost anything else
> I've seen recently. And I'm delighted to see that it's appearing on a
> surprising number of British critics' 1997 top tens, given the decidedly
> mixed reception it had when it opened.
I understand the "mixed reception". LH isn't exactly an easy movie. I
don't think it was really aimed at mainstream audiences (if it was then
someone seriously misjudged the mainstream). I can also see why it would
end up on someone's top ten list. LH demands something from the viewer. It
is very different.
> Michael
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
>
> Next 13 films showing: Kitchen, His Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby,
> Blade Runner, Metropolis, The Big Sleep, North By Northwest,
> My Own Private Idaho, Arizona Dream, Written on the Wind,
> Nelly et Monsieur Arnaud, Ma Vie Sexuelle, Stardust Memories
>
> [All opinions expressed above are my own!]
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Stacey (au...@netdoor.com)
Michael Brooke
J.J. Hunsecker <edd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Dear Michael,
> I gotta nail you for this. I read Stacey's message and she says
> she LIKED Lost Highway. And you get on her ass for disagreeing with you
> about THE STRUCTURE???!!!!
I wish you'd actually *read* the relevant postings instead of doing your
usual superficial skimming (something you seem to have spun off from
your film-watching technique). I make a comment. Stacey disagrees
(though in a rather more intelligent and articulate way than certain
other people I could mention). I defend my corner. What on earth would
you expect me to do? Or indeed any reasonably intelligent human being?
The more I read your postings the more I'm convinced that you have
absolutely no idea what an intelligent argument is. It's perfectly
possible for people to like the same thing but to disagree on precise
details - this happens all the time. The fact that you think it's
somehow unusual speaks volumes about the level of discussion you're more
comfortable with.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.everyman.demon.co.uk - The Everyman Cinema Website
Next 13 films showing: Kitchen, The Big Sleep, North By Northwest,
My Own Private Idaho, Arizona Dream, Written on the Wind,
Nelly et Monsieur Arnaud, Ma Vie Sexuelle, Stardust Memories,
Manhattan, Hammett, The American Friend, Alice in the Cities
Michael Brooke
Stacey Holbrook <au...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Michael Brooke wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > The hardest thing to grasp about 'Lost Highway' is that the narrative is
> > both circular *and* linear - at the same time. And I'd say that one
> > viewing is nowhere near enough to grasp what Lynch is doing, because you
> > really have to see the film with advance knowledge of what's going to
> > happen in order for it to make some kind of "sense" (as I said, I
> > understood the film far better on a second viewing).
>
> I will definately see it again. For most movies, it is easy to say that
> you like it (or not) after only one viewing. I didn't get an automatic
> reaction like this after LH. I had to think about it for a while before I
> could decide how I felt about it. I have a feeling that LH is the kind of
> movie that will engender a different reaction every time it is viewed. I
> think that each viewing will add a new layer of perception as to what it
> is about.
This seems to be pretty much the case - and although with most films a
single viewing is enough to get the general idea (more than enough in
many cases!), such is the nature of 'Lost Highway's dual narrative
structure that I think a minimum of two viewings are *essential* if
you're to have a hope of making any real sense of it. The first half in
particular becomes rather clearer when watched with prior knowledge of
what happens in the second half - and there are all sorts of subtle
connections that you couldn't possibly spot on a first viewing. This is
one of the drawbacks between a film and a book - with books, you can
flip backwards as well as forwards (and I can think of several novels by
experimental writers like Georges Perec whose chapters can be read in
more or less any order), but with films you're basically stuck with the
linear narrative - even video doesn't give you that much control.
>
> > Unfortunately, the film's detractors clearly regret seeing the film
> > once, so there's not much chance of persuading them to give it another
> > go!
>
> *Lost Highway* isn't for everyone. I'm still wondering why so many people
> loved *ID4*. To each his own.
Indeed. In fact, 'Lost Highway' is a strong candidate for the title of
Least Accessible Film of 1997. Although I certainly think it's possible
to appreciate it in terms of Lynch's phenomenal technical control (the
soundtrack in particular is as dense and allusive as ever), it makes you
work hard - and most people aren't prepared to put in that effort. But
I genuinely don't think 'Lost Highway' is that "difficult" - for one
thing, unlike late 1960s Godard, you don't have to bring a huge amount
of background knowledge to it: it is at least possible to appreciate it
on its own terms.
>
> I understand the "mixed reception". LH isn't exactly an easy movie. I
> don't think it was really aimed at mainstream audiences (if it was then
> someone seriously misjudged the mainstream). I can also see why it would
> end up on someone's top ten list. LH demands something from the viewer. It
> is very different.
I think the basic situation was that CiBy 2000 gave Lynch a certain
amount of money and total artistic control - as they also did with Jane
Campion, Pedro Almodovar, Spike Lee, Bernardo Bertolucci and various
other directors on their roster. I know rather more about CiBy 2000 now
than I did a week ago - unlike many independent production companies
they have a huge amount of rock-solid financial backing (the company was
founded on the back of multi-millionaire Francis Bouygues' concrete
empire, a rather more reliable source of income than films!) - and they
set out to create difficult and challenging work by the world's leading
film-makers. I have no idea what the contractual arrangement between
Lynch and CiBy 2000 was, but going from the final film I suspect Lynch
retained total creative control - with all that that implies in terms of
its box office potential (not a lot).
TinaH53374
it's been a while since i saw the movie so don't remember all the details but i
remember coming up with a theory that seemed to pull all the missing links
together - that the mechanic was real and he had been struck by lightning -
after being struck by lightning he got headaches and entered into fugue type
states in which he imagined the bill pullman scenes - this would explain the
lightning imagery throughout the film and the scene towards the end when his
family and friends ask if he remembers what happened the other night - also the
headaches coming on so often
TbChmpion
I've never even heard of this movie, but your posts have definitely intrigued
me enough to seek it out.
I'm sure this will be a wildly unpopular thing to say to this group, but I'm
also rather amused at this thread. You all go into great detail describing
what the movie meant - or why it's impossible to know what it meant. Reminds
me of modern art. Someone can throw paint on a canvas without a single thought
going through his head as to the meaning of what he's doing, yet those that
view his "work" will try their best to give it meaning.
I appreciate the different and the quirky, but I'm always aware that the author
may not be the genius that his admirers make him out to be. Witness Picasso.
Rob
I agree with on that JJ! I think Michael needs to remember that this
newsgroup is titled alt.cult-movies, not alt.pretentious.film-buff-wannbe.
Just an opinion .... (waiting for the flames).
J.J. Hunsecker wrote in message <34A9A5...@earthlink.net>...
>Dear Michael,
> I gotta nail you for this. I read Stacey's message and she says
>she LIKED Lost Highway. And you get on her ass for disagreeing with you
>about THE STRUCTURE???!!!!