Mulholland Drive: firmly in the camp of surrealism?
Sawfish
I'm new to the group, but not to films.
I've read the thread questioning whether or not MD needs to be a dream. Of
course, nothing is cast in stone, but it appears to me that the story
behind MD is an attempt to explore the mind of woman who is bordering on
the delusional, to the point that we don't really know for sure if:
1) she ever met the dark-haired "Camilla";
2) she has an aunt Ruth;
3) she actually hired a hit man to kill anyone;
4) the club Silencio exists.
These are a bare few things we don't know for sure, and reason we don't is
becasue Lynch chooses to tell us the story thru the eyes of an unreliable
POV (Diane/Betty), and he tells us the story ambiguosly, thru what may be
scenes that exist in bare reality, as seen from an objective point of
view. It's damned hard to keep track of where these pieces fit, but I have
an idea that it can be done with repeated viewings.
One hint that much of this exists in a dream is the blurring of characters
from reality to dream. This happens when we see, for example, the
director's mother (reality, most likely) enter Diane's dream (or waking
delusion) as the manager Coco. The cowboy is likely disgested in this way.
I've seen the hairy man described as a homeless man who takes on the
appearance of the horrific. I'm still not sure that his true existence is
purely imaginary and at some point in the delusion he is rationalized as
living *like* a derilict.
The film is one of the most fascinating I've seen in several years. It has
almost convinced me to buy a DVD soley to view it repeatedly.
I'd welcome any further discussion.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
Timo Rainio
"Sawfish" <m...@q7.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:10315947...@q7.q7.com...
> becasue Lynch chooses to tell us the story thru the eyes of an unreliable
> POV (Diane/Betty), and he tells us the story ambiguosly, thru what may be
> scenes that exist in bare reality, as seen from an objective point of
i think this is a main characteristic of many of Lynch's work - to let us
almost physically experience that there is no such thing as *the* reality.
Instead, every individual has it's own reality and to some people even the
most strange and frigthening perceptions are very real.
Seen like this, a movie like Mulholland Drive does not need to have a
logical explanation for every aspect - as you said it's told ambigously and
ambigous views simply don't match.
Still, i too love to try to solve the puzzles and make some sense of all the
mess ...
x
disorder. There are so many takes on this film, I wonder if even Lynch
knows. Sometimes things are just better off left unsolved. Art for Art's
sake!
-X
Sawfish wrote in message <10315947...@q7.q7.com>...
Trichome
> I'm new to the group, but not to films.
>
> I've read the thread questioning whether or not MD needs to be a dream. Of
> course, nothing is cast in stone, but it appears to me that the story
> behind MD is an attempt to explore the mind of woman who is bordering on
> the delusional, to the point that we don't really know for sure if:
Yup, and I'm sure the post-wake-up scenes are a second kind of
flashback-laden dream, different from the narrative continuity of
Betty/Rita/Adam's adventures.
> 1) she ever met the dark-haired "Camilla";
The waking mind of Diane Selwyn knew Camilla Rhodes (LEH). It is
simpler to believe her explanation of their meeting, on the set of the
Sylvia North Story. Diane knew Camilla well enough to get invited to
the party, but the make-out on the couch I feel was fabricated using
Camilla's face on Diane's dark-haired girlfriend. So Diane could have
had a minimal real experience with Camilla. Or they could have made
out, or been lovers.
> 2) she has an aunt Ruth;
She has an aunt; it's easier for her to dream a real aunt, than to
invent a Ruth.
> 3) she actually hired a hit man to kill anyone;
The film becomes a weak metaphor, without the horror of true
transgression to mar Diane's soul. It motivates the exaggeration of her
Betty/Rita/Adam dream, and her final self-destruction from guilt. There
needs to be a harsh point, explaining why she "deserves" her fate. It's
the finality, the murderous jealousy of Diane Selwyn in Winkie's at that
moment. That's when the Bum becomes the embodiment of Diane's
corrupted, filthy, charred soul.
> 4) the club Silencio exists.
Not, unknown "to the point where we can't tell for sure, if ":
> These are a bare few things we don't know for sure, and reason we don't is
> becasue Lynch chooses to tell us the story thru the eyes of an unreliable
> POV (Diane/Betty), and he tells us the story ambiguosly, thru what may be
> scenes that exist in bare reality, as seen from an objective point of
> view. It's damned hard to keep track of where these pieces fit, but I have
> an idea that it can be done with repeated viewings.
I think so too. I had a scheme worked out, a web page which lists
each separate sequence parallel to a time line, with implied and stated
connections between events taking place in the same mental space, the
same "reality". I'd guess there are 6 to 9 at least slightly separate
grouping, representing Diane's common biasing distortion in those
related scenes.
> One hint that much of this exists in a dream is the blurring of characters
> from reality to dream. This happens when we see, for example, the
> director's mother (reality, most likely) enter Diane's dream (or waking
> delusion) as the manager Coco. The cowboy is likely disgested in this way.
> I've seen the hairy man described as a homeless man who takes on the
> appearance of the horrific. I'm still not sure that his true existence is
> purely imaginary and at some point in the delusion he is rationalized as
> living *like* a derilict.
Diane stared up at Dan when she placed the hit, and the horror of
what the Bum represents became bound to the man she dreamt was Dan, the
terrified dreamer.
> The film is one of the most fascinating I've seen in several years. It has
> almost convinced me to buy a DVD soley to view it repeatedly.
>
> I'd welcome any further discussion.
Stick around. Set a spell.
Take your shoes off.
Trichome
--
Scripts and other texts available on request: Grandmother, EM,
Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH; TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions,
movie references, symbols in TP, Log Lady intros, Laura's Secret Diary,
Cooper's autobiography, my more insightful posts in Google; On the Air,
LH, tSS, MD pilot... & etcetera, and etcetera.
Trichome
"x" <ptree...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What an amazing experience MD is! It is a world full of confusion and
> disorder. There are so many takes on this film, I wonder if even Lynch
> knows. Sometimes things are just better off left unsolved. Art for Art's
> sake!
>
> -X
Phooey on your wet noodle philosophy! Lynch does have concrete
meanings for (nearly) everything in MD, though sometimes those meanings
may be doubled or ambiguous. He respects every viewers experience,
appreciates the kaliedoscope of (mis)perceptions the audience
experiences. But I value Lynch's primary intentions much more. We can
write about and interpret MD, shedding our biases in favor of honest
observations.
We are all detectives, and Lynch leaves enough clues to teach us how
to investigate. I would rather marvel at his creative and meaningful
choices, than claim that nothing concrete can be said. "Art for Art's
sake", my Ass.
Sawfish
I'm pretty much with you on this stuff.
I'll need to see the film again, but I'm convinced that MD is nothing more
(or less) than a very meticulously told story that blends a fantastic POV
(Diane Selwin, the failed actress), her dreams, ands at least on other
objective POV to fill in the gaps.
Great work.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Jesse
> > What an amazing experience MD is! It is a world full of confusion and
> > disorder. There are so many takes on this film, I wonder if even Lynch
> > knows. Sometimes things are just better off left unsolved. Art for
Art's
> > sake!
>
> meanings for (nearly) everything in MD, though sometimes those meanings
> may be doubled or ambiguous. He respects every viewers experience,
> appreciates the kaliedoscope of (mis)perceptions the audience
> experiences. But I value Lynch's primary intentions much more. We can
> write about and interpret MD, shedding our biases in favor of honest
> observations.
>
> We are all detectives, and Lynch leaves enough clues to teach us how
> to investigate. I would rather marvel at his creative and meaningful
> choices, than claim that nothing concrete can be said. "Art for Art's
> sake", my Ass.
I think much of MD has a very intuitive feel to it. There doesn't have to be
an intellectual reason behind everything in a film. It seems like some parts
of MD are there purely because they FELT right... just my opinion but Lynch
seems to be a very intuitive filmmaker. Not to say MD is random shit put on
the screen... obviously not... but I'd say some is definately written with
more emphasis on the heart rather than mind.
Jesse
Sawfish
I can agree that Lynch operates in the viewers' subconscious like no
other filmmaker I've seen, and in this regard he plucks out some strange
emotional responses. This part of his work is evocative and very much like
Kenneth Anger's early work, where you'd see Annais Nin, just sitting
there, made up like someone's idea of of Ming the Merciless' #1 concubine,
one breast casually exposed, and you get absolutely creeped out!!!
Another part of what he does is to put together the narrative element so
that you have some excuse for staying watching these fantastically
evocative images for about 2 hours. Anger's stuff was about 15-20 minutes.
NO narrative, all evocative image, so that's as long as anyone could watch
a non-narrative piece and still be moved by the images. Well, Lynch is a
great master of non-linear narrative. He is meticulous and he is original,
and effective, and he really challenges viewers.
Some are not up to the challenge, and yet their emotions are tweaked.
Because they don't understand what Lynch is doing (I'm not sure either),
they want to come up with *more* than is intended--and there's plenty of
intended elements there, but they are mainly techniques to tell a story
that can be plausibly used to hang his evocative images from.
It's like he has these images (like Anger did), and makes a story that
will logically permit the images to be used. Because many of his images
could exist only in the subconscious, the POV must be delusional or
dreaming.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~