Rebuttal to Ebert's "Lost Highway" review
Jeff Gower
>David Lynch's ``Lost Highway'' is like kissing a mirror: You like what
you see
Unlike Roger, I've never liked what I've seen in the mirror enough to kiss
it. Haha.
>but it's not much fun and kind of cold.
Neither was "A Clockwork Orange" or "Saving Private Ryan". So what?
>It's a shaggy ghost story,
Wrong. It is not a ghost story.
>an exercise in style,
I will grant that Lynch has a keen eye for style, and uses it in his
movies in such a way that they will never seem dated.
>a film made with a certain breezy contempt for audiences.
Here we go. He thinks that the very purpose of this movie was to confuse
the viewers. Jeez. He should know better.
>I've seen it twice, hoping to make sense of it. There is
no sense to be made of it. To try is to miss the point. What you see is
all you get.
There is abundant "sense" to be made of it, just not the kind of logical
straightforwardness that Ebert would have liked. Hell, Roger's got alot of
movies to squeeze in - he doesn't have time to fart around with a piece of
film art! He needs order and logic so that he can move on! Haha.
>That's not to say it's without interest. Some of the images are
effective, the soundtrack is strong and disturbing,
Ah, finally some kind words from the omniscient critic.
>and there is a moment that Alfred Hitchcock would have been proud of (although
Hitchcock would not have preceded or followed it with this film).
Well, I admit that I am no Hitchcock expert, but from the several
Hitchcock films I have seen, I see no reason to make qualitative
judgements about a Lynch film based on whether or not Hitchcock would have
done something similar.
>Hope
is constantly fanned back to life throughout the story; we keep thinking
maybe Lynch will somehow pull it off, until the shapeless final scenes,
when we realize it really is all an empty stylistic facade.
Pull WHAT off? What exactly does Roger think should have been pulled off?
A narrative conclusion that was logical and comfy TO ROGER? And "shapeless
final scenes"?? Is he kidding? Those are some of the "shapely" final
scenes I've ever seen in a movie - the pace becomes nervous and desperate,
the imagery disturbing and nightmarish, the "conclusion" an orgiastic
blur. How more "shapely" can one get? And all without the cliche "let's
hurry and wrap this thing up" climax. And "we realize it really is all an
empty stylistic facade"?! Give me a break. You could take Ebert's comments
above and apply them to the masterpiece "2001" too, but they would be just
as wrong and downright LAZY to make such conclusions. You could also call
a poem by Mallarme' "an empty stylistic facade" too, because of its
symbolist (as opposed to narrative) nature. How absurd.
>This movie is about design, not cinema.
I love the way that Ebert readily admits he has no substantial clue about
this movie, but yet he claims to have determined 1) Lynch's purpose in
making this movie, and 2) what this movie "is about". "Design, not
cinema"? Huh? Yes, Lynch is a visual (and an aural) artist, and applies
his enormous talents therefrom to moving pictures (the definition of
"cinema" in my dictionary).
>Can people be in two places at once? Why not?
(Here Ebert refers to the "mystery man" who seemed to be at the party and
at Fred's house simultaneously, and also the apparent metamorphosis of
Fred Madison into Pete Dayton, as well as the Renee/Alice connection)
Nope. Ebert missed the entire gist here, I believe. He is approaching the
film from an exclusively third-person narrative POV, rather than the more
subjective expressionist first-person POV that is needed to fully
appreciate this great film, IMO.
>....a scene where Arquette is forced to disrobe
at gunpoint and stand naked in a roomful of strange men--an echo of
Isabella Rossellini's humiliation in Lynch's ``Blue Velvet.'' Does this
scene have a point?
Yes indeed. I've read complaints even from Lynch fans that there were
aspects of this movie involving Alice that were too pornographically
violent. There were definite reasons for this, IMO.
>Does any scene in the movie have a point?
Not every scene has a logical third-person narrative flow, no. And yes,
there are scenes that I have not been able to explain easily. But what is
amazing to me is that a seasoned film buff like Ebert would even THINK
that every scene in a movie has to have a "point".
>``Lost Highway'' plays like a director's idea book, in which isolated
scenes and notions are jotted down for possible future use. Instead of
massaging them into a finished screenplay, Lynch and collaborator Barry
Gifford seem to have filmed the notes.
Lynch is known to improvise alot during filming. For example, he has even
admitted that sometimes he and Mark Frost were not sure of what they were
going to do next during the Twin Peaks series. But that does not change
things here - the premise is still intact, the desired goal is still
intact. It is just that he has been freed from the logical imperative of
the narrative, and instead he allows his instincts, which are tuned into
the expressionist subconscious struggle of his characters, creative
freedom during the entire writing and production process.
>Is the joke on us?
No, the joke IS you, Roger - you are the one who claims to have superior
cinematic interpretive skills. Haha.
>Is it our error to try to make sense of the film, to
try to figure out why protagonists change in midstream?
Of course not!! Why would it be "error" to try to understand a film? The
error is when viewers approach EVERY film with the exact same POV and with
the baggage of countless films being used as a filter through which they
try to interpret all other films. It is like trying to approach Penderecki
after having only heard Mozart and Beethoven for years, and insisting on
trying to figure out the former through the interpretive restrictions of
the latter.
>Let's say the movie should be taken exactly as is, with no questions
asked.
Again, this is absurd. This is just cynical defeatist drivel.
>There's no emotional or artistic thread running through the
material to make it seem necessary that it's all in the same film together.
I just love when someone claims to have single-handedly and conclusively
determined the absence of "emotional or artistic" content of an artistic
product. I guess one could say the same about the presence of such
content, eh? The point is, the above Ebert statement is not only devoid of
substance, it is offensive to anyone who has ever produced a work of art.
What an arrogant statement.
>The giveaway is that the characters have no interest apart
from their situation; they exist entirely as creatures of the movie's
design and conceits
What's the point here, Roger? There IS one, you know - there is a reason
for the unidimensional character of some of the players here. But you
missed that, didn't you, Rog?
>Luis Bunuel, the Spanish surrealist, once made a film in which two
actresses played the same role interchangeably, in the appropriately
titled ``That Obscure Object of Desire'' (1977). He made absolutely no
attempt to explain this oddity.
Are you kidding here, Rog? He didn't HAVE to make an attempt to explain
"this oddity", nor should he - are you saying you didn't see a reason for
the one woman playing the girlfriend being frigid, whereas the other one
was a redhot nymphomaniac, in a movie about "thwarted libido"? Are you
kidding? Come on, Roger - you are so LAZY.
>But when Lynch has Patricia Arquette apparently playing two women (and
Bill Pullman and Balthazar Getty perhaps playing the same man), we don't
feel it's a surrealistic joke. We feel--I dunno, I guess I felt jerked
around.
Is ALL surrealism supposed to be a joke, Roger? It is all meant to be
frivolous attempt at humorous oddball entertainment? "Art, literature, or
theater characterized by fantastic or incongruous imagery or effects
produced by unnatural juxtapositions and combinations" - this is how my
Merriam Webster defines "surrealism". I see no mention of "joke" or that a
practitioner of surrealism should take care not to "jerk one around".
Isn't that sort of the very PURPOSE of surrealist elements - to attempt to
force the receiver out of a predisposed POV?! If you felt "jerked around",
then Lynch at least succeeded somewhat - but the jerked-around one has to
be willing to acknowledge that just perhaps it is beneficial to be jerked
around in this case. Too bad you were just too defensive and closed to any
other POV than the one you apparently feel most comfortable with.
>Lynch is such a talented director. Why does he pull the rug out
from under his own films?
A more appropriate question from Roger Ebert would be: "Lynch is such a
talented director. What the hell am I, Roger Ebert, doing trying to
criticize his films?"
>I have nothing against movies of mystery, deception and puzzlement.
"Just so long as they are nice discrete packages of easily-assimilated
open-and-shut stories. Please, not TOO much 'mystery, deception and
puzzlement' - makes my feeble head spin!"
>It's
just that I'd like to think the director has an idea, a purpose, an
overview, beyond the arbitrary manipulation of plot elements.
And I'd like to think that an established film critic has "an idea, a
purpose, an overview, beyond the arbitrary manipulation" of routine, rote
film-watching POV and critical cliche's - it would be nice if ONE critic
could be relied upon to actually try to open up and take in a film as a
work of art rather than the cinematic equivalent of a formulaic top-10 pop
song.
>He knows
how to put effective images on the screen, and how to use a soundtrack to
create mood, but at the end of the film, our hand closes on empty air.
If all you experienced were "effective images" and a mood-inducing
soundtrack, then that alone would be worthy of more praise than you have
rendered here, Roger. But no, you were left with your "hands clos(ing) on
empty air". In other words, this movie bounced right off of the filter you
call critical insight and flew right over your head. Why don't you admit
as much, like an honest critic should, rather than irresponsibly publicly
rendering the whole exercise as an "empty stylistic facade"?
What a disappointment you are, Roger. You should go back to looking at,
and kissing, mirrors - after all, it is one place where you admit to
"liking what you see".
Rob
few good critics out there, and to judge someone's opinion is pretty stupid.
Although i am aware that i am doing the same, i feel that you can't compare a ghost
story to a great film like A Clockwork Orange. A Clockwork Orange makes a "point"
and it is much stronger than the "point" of "Lost Highway."
I agree that Ebert makes some big mistakes from time to time, but his opinion is
his opinion.
You don't see me geting pissed cause he didn't like The Usual Supspects. Maybe you
should have said that "Roger is pretty far off on this review, but thats his own
opinion."
doppelcooper@hotmail.com®
When replying any further to this thread and it doesn't have anything to do
with Twin Peaks then I would appriciate it if you remove alt.tv.twin-peaks
from "the header". Ok? Thanks. I owe you guys one! ;-)
______________________________________________________________
doppel...@hotmail.com® The things I write is a code waiting to be broken
COOPER: Who's the lady with the log? TRUMAN: We call her the Log Lady
tim fulmer
> A rebuttal to Ebert's "review" of "Lost Highway":
<snip>
> >Can people be in two places at once? Why not?
> (Here Ebert refers to the "mystery man" who seemed to be at the party and
> at Fred's house simultaneously, and also the apparent metamorphosis of
> Fred Madison into Pete Dayton, as well as the Renee/Alice connection)
>
> Nope. Ebert missed the entire gist here, I believe. He is approaching the
> film from an exclusively third-person narrative POV, rather than the more
> subjective expressionist first-person POV that is needed to fully
> appreciate this great film, IM0.
<snip>
I love to hear this kind of rebuttal to Ebert, not being much of an Ebert fan
myself--he deserves it, IMO.
But this particular movie baffled me, as well; in fact, it disappointed me quite a
bit. As I recall watching the film the first time, I was totally enthralled with
it right up until a very specific incident in the movie: when they opened up the
cell, and it was no longer Pullman's character. I still recall sitting there in
the theatre and thinking, "Oh shit, now anything goes." Now this scene could've
certainly gone miles over my head, but I've not heard anyone give a good
explanation for this scene except ones resembling your
it's-not-normal-third-person-narrative-movie explanation. I say, fine, so it
isn't, but you still haven't told me what the purpose of the scene is (or several
other scenes that follow, for that matter).
I think I understand Ebert's frustration--despite his arrogance about it. The
movie begins with what I found to be a tightly crafted suspenseful narrative--and
I loved these parts--but it seems to become less and less coherent as time goes
on. I wouldn't have any complaint if it was incoherent from beginning to end, but
I don't see it that way. Instead it seems to begin well-structured only to fall
apart finally and become a series of images and sounds.
I would like to hear some opinions on the arc of the narrative. Is it really
going somewhere? Or is it merely a jumbled attempt at some kind of expressive
surrealism? I don't pretend to know what Lynch was attempting, but I do know that
I still can't fully grasp it after several viewings, so I'm starting to place the
ineptitude on Lynch more and more, and much less on my critical skills.
chr...@ccrtc.com
When I go out to see art at galleries, I don't want a guide explaining
what the painting means. It means what it means only to ME.
Once it's been released, it's open to interpretation.
I like the way Lost Highway made me FEEL, not how it stacks up to
other films. I think Ebert see's too many films to be impartial.
Don't know how he feels about art. Who cares. I can form my own
opinions, thank you.
David Lynch knew what he was doing & created a new kind of film
which happened to be disguised with all the trappings of modern
cliches. Total return to form. Thanks David. -Zeeterman
Marcelo E Mazzanti
That guy Ebert's the one that goes with that other guy giving 'two thumbs
up' reviews and all?
I haven't much followed him / them, living in another country and all; I
only know of the qualifications he / they give to movies in its promotional
posters, and of an interview with them in Playboy from six or seven years
ago, I think.
Anyway, this may not the fair not having heard the explanations, but I tend
to disagree a lot with this / these guy / s. Also, in that interview, which
I again don't remember well, I *do* remember I thought 'Wow, what a
conservative guy' when he mentioned his all-time best movies, what makes him
think that a movie's 'good' or 'bad', etc.
This being the first of his reviews I've read in full, well, let's say that
film critics in Europe (well, in Spain and England, the only countries from
which I read reviews) tend to be a little more 'complete' and broad-minded.
If he really said that about 'That Obscure Object of Desire', well... I saw
that movie when I was 14 and had no trouble at all understanding the
*obvious* reason behind the same role played by Carole Bouquet and (I think)
Angela Molina. And let me assure you, I'm no rocket scientist!
Anyway (stop reading if I'm wrong), I think he plays 'Joe Average going to
the movies.' If that indeed is his approach, this review's perfect as it
matches the oppinions of the majority of people I know that actually went to
see it. But then, who cares? A film critic's function should be to broad the
mind of the movie-goer, not to just say things to which the vast majority
would say. OK, this last point is absolutely debatable, it's only MHO...
Not wanting to go here into every detail (with which I disagree the same as
you), I'll just summarize my own review of his review with: What do I care
what this guy thinks? (Of course, the opposite is also true: What should he
care what I think?)
I sure hope this is not the best American critics can offer, because anyone
can like or dislike a film, this is a free country and all, but the reasons
he gives (at least here) are as flimsy as a paper house in Tokyo during an
earthquake.
(On a side note, maybe this guy should read a little about what Surrealism
is before talking / writing about it, because it's been quite a few years
since the Surrealist Manifesto and he still hasn't got it.)
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
'I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.' -Tori Amos
Jeff Gower escribió en mensaje ...
>A rebuttal to Ebert's "review" of "Lost Highway":
>ETC
Alfons
<jgower-2608...@ppp224.gator.net>...
> A rebuttal to Ebert's "review" of "Lost Highway":
Great post, though I'm not sure I agree on everything, you nailed many
things right to the point. Thanks!
Alfons
Jeff Gower
> What was you point about Ebert's review?
Let me go over it again, really slow..... ;-)
>I believe that Roger Ebert is one of a
> few good critics out there
So do I - he is one of my favorites. But he is dead wrong in his
assessment of Lynch's films.
>and to judge someone's opinion is pretty stupid.
Haha. His opinion is flawed (in my opinion). Haha.
> Although i am aware that i am doing the same, i feel that you can't compare a
> ghost story to a great film like A Clockwork Orange.
Ah, here is the problem - you, like Roger, think LH is a "ghost story".
>A Clockwork Orange makes a "point"
> and it is much stronger than the "point" of "Lost Highway."
I agree. ACO made an important and powerful statement, as per its obvious
intention. LH had no big statement to make; it was a completely different
film. I was not really comparing ACO with LH at all - re-read what I
wrote in context - I just picked a movie that was "not much fun" and
"cold" to counter Roger's inference that that is a bad thing.
> Maybe you
> should have said that "Roger is pretty far off on this review, but thats his
>own opinion."
Good grief. Of COURSE that is the case - that needs not be said - it is a
given. I was just enjoying poking fun at the guy. Did Roger have to say
"this is only my opinion about this film"? No - he didn't have to - we
all KNOW that already. I love it when people like you think that every
sentence in a public discussion forum must be prefaced with: "this is only
my opinion, and is not meant to discount your opinion, because your
opinion is just as valid as my opinion, since they both are only opinions
bla bla bla bla bla......" Haha.
Frivolously yours,
Jeff
sc5...@my-dejanews.com
Lets face it...Roger Ebert hates David Lynch...He hated Blue Velvet,
considered by many to be a modern classic...I like Roger Ebert (he did win a
pulitzer didnt he?) although he goes through phases of liking absolutly
everything, the fact that he gave a good review to that stupid Eddie Murphy
movie a couple of years ago does in fact make me wonder about his motives
sometimes...read his review of "Dark City" and you'll wonder why theres so
much difference between it and the LH review....
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jeff Gower
>an exercise in style,
>Can people be in two places at once? Why not?
(Here Ebert refers to the "mystery man" who seemed to be at the party and
at Fred's house simultaneously, and also the apparent metamorphosis of
Fred Madison into Pete Dayton, as well as the Renee/Alice connection)
Nope. Ebert missed the entire gist here, I believe. He is approaching the
film from an exclusively third-person narrative POV, rather than the more
subjective expressionist first-person POV that is needed to fully
"liking what you see". Haha.
Jeff Gower
<ful...@bioc.rice.edu> wrote:
> I would like to hear some opinions on the arc of the narrative. Is it really
> going somewhere? Or is it merely a jumbled attempt at some kind of expressive
> surrealism? I don't pretend to know what Lynch was attempting, but I do
know that
> I still can't fully grasp it after several viewings
I know, Tim! Isn't it GREAT?! :-)
Like Lynch said, once you fully grasp something, once you have
analytically defined the "meaning" and "purpose" of something, much of its
magic and artistic appeal fades. Haha.
But, seriously, to answer your questions (or more precisely, to not answer
them), this topic has been discussed to death, and I don't want to go into
the various specific narrative theories and explanations that have been
tossed about, because in a way I think to do so would miss the point
somewhat. Approaching a Lynch film (especially ones like Eraserhead or LH
or FWWM) with a strict narrative POV is likely to lead to frustration. I
have my own POV when viewing this movie that works for ME very well and
renders the movie more enjoyable and satisfying each time I watch it. In
fact, I think the very reason some people enjoy this film so much while
others do not is because of a presence or absence of a certain
intrinsically sympathetic POV - That is precisely the name of the game
when it comes to the subjective appreciation of most fine works of art.
I, like you, don't pretend to know exactly what Lynch was attempting in LH
either - but I think that, based on a strong familiarity and artistic
sympathy with his previous work, it perhaps does not seem so difficult for
me to assimilate and "grasp".
Here is a brief attempt to describe my take on Lynch's films:
Lynch's films are highly-individual and expressionistic visual and aural
art-in-motion - they often focus strongly on the subconscious and freedom
from the logical reductiveness of the narrative. Similar to Bergman's
"finding nothing more than an emptiness which is easier to frame in terms
of images than in words", except for the important difference that Lynch
finds fullness rather than emptiness - a liberating richness that
transcends the boundaries of consciousness and "reality". Not always
pleasant or happy fullness/richness, and definitely not always predictable
or logical, however - quite the opposite many times. But the
unpleasantness, fear and danger come from lack of courage and
receptivity....Lynch portrays a "reality" that exists seperately from the
surface of life as we see it, which is so much cliche and posturing and,
well, artificial and disingenuous. Sometimes his films portray characters
that become aware of this "reality" but continually fight it (like in
"Lost Highway" and "Twin Peaks"), out of fear of the unknown or of being
discovered for what they truly are. But his films are almost always
stories that portray a sort of personal redemption and the power of love
and courage to transcend the confusion, disillusionment, self-realization,
humility and fear associated with awareness of this "reality". This is
basically what ALL of his films are about, to varying degrees. If you
watch all his films, you see these common threads.
Getting back to the narrative aspect, as it relates to LH....my best
friend and I were discussing LH recently and he correctly commented that
there should not be a need to abandon narrative in order to portray
first-person expressive perspective (or even "expressive surrealism" as
you suggested, Tim). Well, of COURSE there is not a NEED to abandon
narrative to show first-person perspective - but there are differing
levels of personal perspective and expression, aren't there? (otherwise,
we'd have to reject all artists that express/ed themselves in
non-straightforward, non-traditional means) In this case (LH), isn't it
conceivable that a deranged individual like Fred Madison, full of intense
anxiety, regret, fear, self-delusion, hatred, whatever, might just have,
at the particular point in time as shown in the movie, a personal
subjective POV that does not lend itself to the logical
straight-clear-thinking first-this,then-that, kind of first-person POV
that you'd expect from someone who was thinking over his day at the office
while lying in bed at night? Haha. At least from an interesting artistic
perspective, I thought Lynch was brilliantly attempting (and I emphasize
this word, since to do so accurately is impossible, hence the narrative
confusion) to portray such a POV.
I know this doesn't concretely explain anything or clear up any narrative
confusion you express w/r/to LH, Tim. And I know that this is similar to
the unsatisfactory "explanations" that you say you have heard before. But
I also think that it is somewhat futile to seek answers to specific
questions regarding narrative and logic in some of the twists and surreal
juxtapositions seen in this movie. It is FUN, yes, but like many
similarly frustrating elements of Twin Peaks and other Lynch work, to
focus on them is to miss seeing the whole picture. But that doesn't keep
us Lynch-fans from trying!! ;-)
Jeff
Marcelo E Mazzanti
Jeff Gower escribió en mensaje ...
>assessment of Lynch's films.
>
>ETC
>
>Frivolously yours,
>Jeff
I found today by chance a commentary by him on Blade Runner that said that
'it looks fabulous... but it is thin in its human story.'
So, he didn't like Lost Highway... he didn't like Blade Runner... he didn't
like The Usual Suspects (as someone pointed out recently)... ah, but he did
like Bliss -which I went out to see today, it was either that or
Godzilla-... what a great critic indeed!
But of course, this is only my opinion... :)
r_c...@my-dejanews.com
"Marcelo E Mazzanti" <marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es> wrote:
>
>
> One thing we can't deny Lynch is his honesty to himself. And his films are
> not usually mainstream. He makes them so you have to watch them more than
> one time to even begin to have a prayer of understanding them, but he's
> always insisting that 'understanding' in an intelectual level is not what
> one should look for in his films.
>
My first and only viewing of Lost Highway left me nonplussed. The movie has
lingered in my mind, however, and is demanding a second viewing. As far as
meaning in the film goes it is my opinion that meaning, like beauty, is in the
eye/mind of the beholder.
R. Cody
Michael Brooke
> In article <6s3ru7$p...@wendy.mad.servicom.es>,
> "Marcelo E Mazzanti" <marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One thing we can't deny Lynch is his honesty to himself. And his films are
> > not usually mainstream. He makes them so you have to watch them more than
> > one time to even begin to have a prayer of understanding them, but he's
> > always insisting that 'understanding' in an intelectual level is not what
> > one should look for in his films.
> >
>
> My first and only viewing of Lost Highway left me nonplussed. The movie has
> lingered in my mind, however, and is demanding a second viewing.
It *needs* a second viewing. There are very few films I can honestly
say this about, but the combined circular/linear narrative structure of
'Lost Highway' is such that you cannot hope to make sense of it after
just one viewing, and for once that isn't a criticism of the film.
True, you're not going to make total sense of it after more than one
viewing, but at least you should have a clearer idea of what Lynch (and
co-writer Barry Gifford) were trying to do.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
tim fulmer
> In article <35E46A92...@bioc.rice.edu>, tim fulmer
> <ful...@bioc.rice.edu> wrote:
>
> > I would like to hear some opinions on the arc of the narrative. Is it really
> > going somewhere? Or is it merely a jumbled attempt at some kind of expressive
> > surrealism? I don't pretend to know what Lynch was attempting, but I do
> know that
> > I still can't fully grasp it after several viewings
>
> I know, Tim! Isn't it GREAT?! :-)
> Like Lynch said, once you fully grasp something, once you have
> analytically defined the "meaning" and "purpose" of something, much of its
> magic and artistic appeal fades. Haha.
So true, so true. But, on the other hand, if the viewer can't find at least some
kind of necessity in the narrative, it can be very infuriating to subject oneself
to it. IMO, this is why Ebert has such difficulties with David Lynch's films.
In his BLUE VELVET review he writes,
"If 'Blue Velvet' had continued to develop its story in a straight line, if it
had followed more deeply into the implications of the first shocking
encounter between Rossellini and MacLachlan, it might have made some real
emotional discoveries. Instead, director David Lynch chose to interrupt
the almost hypnotic pull of that relationship in order to pull back to his
jokey, small-town satire."
And also: "'Blue Velvet' is like the guy who drives
you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying, 'Never mind.'"
And he bgins his WILD AT HEART review with,
"There is something inside of me that resists the films of David
Lynch. I am aware of it, I admit to it, but I cannot think my way
around it. I sit and watch his films and am aware of his energy, his
visual flair, his flashes of wit. But as the movie rolls along,
something grows inside of me - an indignation, an unwillingness, a
resistance. At the end of both 'Blue Velvet' and 'Wild at Heart,' I was
angry, as if a clever con-man had tried to put one over on me."
In other words, Ebert has pretty much *decided* that David Lynch is screwing him
over by hinting at a lot of tantalizing themes using brilliant
imagery/sound/production design and then, in the end, never delivering the goods.
At least he admits that he "can't think his way around it." ;-)
Regardless, I think it's an important issue with Lynch's films: that they can be
frustrating to the audience for the very reason that they do not conform to some of
the unstated rules of good narrative while at the same time not suggesting (at
least to people like Ebert) alternative ways of understanding them.
Getting somewhat off-topic here--but a movie that I reacted to in a very similar
manner as LOST HIGHWAY was 12 MONKEYS, which I thought was another con-job. I was
curious to see if Ebert had a similar view, and he says in his 12M review:
"Gilliam's 'Brazil' was praised by a lot of critics, but I didn't
get it, even after repeated viewings. '12 Monkeys' is easier to
follow, . . . But even here, Gilliam allows the anarchic
flywheel of madness to spin: The Brad Pitt character, spewing
compulsive visions of paranoia and dread, is a powerful influence,
suggesting that logic cannot solve the movie's problems."
Another example: In his review of USUAL SUSPECTS (which he totally panned), he
ends the review with, "To the degree that you will want to see this movie, it will
be because of the surprise, and so I will say no more, except to say that the
'solution,' when it comes, solves little - unless there is really little to solve,
which is also a possibility."
So he is consistent, at least! His POV, as a film critic anyway, seems to be that
good films have a tight, well-structured narrative, the outlines of which can be
grasped on the first viewing; otherwise, as he says, the director is just letting
"the anarchic flywheel of madness" spin, and taking the risk that after awhile the
audience doesn't give a damn what happens.
> But, seriously, to answer your questions (or more precisely, to not answer
> them), this topic has been discussed to death, and I don't want to go into
> the various specific narrative theories and explanations that have been
> tossed about, because in a way I think to do so would miss the point
> somewhat. Approaching a Lynch film (especially ones like Eraserhead or LH
> or FWWM) with a strict narrative POV is likely to lead to frustration.
As Roger Ebert's reviews illustrate....
> I have my own POV when viewing this movie that works for ME very well and
> renders the movie more enjoyable and satisfying each time I watch it. In
> fact, I think the very reason some people enjoy this film so much while
> others do not is because of a presence or absence of a certain
> intrinsically sympathetic POV
I agree completely, but I only wish that those who enjoy it could share their
"intrinsically sympathetic POV" with the likes of Roger Ebert (and me, in the case
of Lost Highway).
> - That is precisely the name of the game
> when it comes to the subjective appreciation of most fine works of art.
> I, like you, don't pretend to know exactly what Lynch was attempting in LH
> either - but I think that, based on a strong familiarity and artistic
> sympathy with his previous work, it perhaps does not seem so difficult for
> me to assimilate and "grasp".
<snipped your take on Lynch's films>
I agree with most of what you said there, actually. But I also appreciate--you
probably do as well--that making films about the subconscious, where all linearity
of time and space cease to exist, presents serious problems and temptations to the
director. The problem is that film is such a literal medium that the juxtaposition
of apparently unrelated scenes appears--on one level (Ebert's level as a
reviewer)--as in fact nothing more than a series of scenes following one after
another in time, but nothing at all like the seething cauldron of emotion they're
supposed to symbolize. The temptation to the director, then, is to indulge himself
in non-linear-narrative filmmaking styles, while defending himself from the
critical charges of the Roger Eberts with the rebuttal, "Hey, I'm making movies
about the subconscious, where it's all non-linear, just deep unresolved conflicts,
etc."
> I know this doesn't concretely explain anything or clear up any narrative
> confusion you express w/r/to LH, Tim. And I know that this is similar to
> the unsatisfactory "explanations" that you say you have heard before. But
> I also think that it is somewhat futile to seek answers to specific
> questions regarding narrative and logic in some of the twists and surreal
> juxtapositions seen in this movie. It is FUN, yes, but like many
> similarly frustrating elements of Twin Peaks and other Lynch work, to
> focus on them is to miss seeing the whole picture. But that doesn't keep
> us Lynch-fans from trying!! ;-)
>
--which I'm glad to hear. But, of course, it won't keep the Rober Eberts out there
from bashing those very same movies. ;-)
Marcelo E Mazzanti
Now *that's* a universal truth! I wish more people would understand it /
think the same, though...
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
'I think it's perfectly clear we're in the wrong band.' -Tori Amos
r_c...@my-dejanews.com escribió en mensaje
<6s5hg4$apg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Jeff Gower
You are right - Ebert is very consistent and that is why I trust his
reviews more than most critics, even though we don't always agree. And
yes, he has made it clear over the years that he just doesn't enjoy
Lynch's work. That is his loss. Ha! ;-)
But seriously....
> Regardless, I think it's an important issue with Lynch's films: that
they can be
> frustrating to the audience for the very reason that they do not conform
to some of
> the unstated rules of good narrative while at the same time not suggesting (at
> least to people like Ebert) alternative ways of understanding them.
This is one of the very reasons I enjoy them as much as I do - no
hand-holding and guided tours in his movies - no easy "suggestions of ways
to understand them". Some folks hate that kind of thing and find it
ridiculous and unworthy of their time; some folks love it and find it very
artistically rewarding. Sort of like when I first listened to modern
classical music, or first read symbolist poetry - I am not claiming at all
that I understand these arts fully - no way!, but that I greatly enjoy the
challenge and the frequent rewards that come therefrom. But I was blown
away by Lynch from day ONE and consistently remain so today - I can't say
that about many other directors (perhaps Kubrick). His aesthetic and
method (if you will) has always been directly on my wavelength, as I wrote
earlier:
> > I think the very reason some people enjoy this film so much while
> > others do not is because of a presence or absence of a certain
> > intrinsically sympathetic POV
>
> I agree completely, but I only wish that those who enjoy it could share their
> "intrinsically sympathetic POV"
I wish it were so easy!! ;-)
I have proselytized for Lynch (and other of my enthusiasms) enough to know
that it just doesn't work that way - very rarely does attempting to
"share" or explain that admittedly silly-sounding notion of "intrinsically
sympathetic POV" has worked, or likely will. For instance, you have
responded to a rather lengthy attempt of mine to explain my take on
Lynch's work, and why I like it - but do you sympathize any more with what
I was saying? Haha. But that doesn't keep me from trying now and then -
if nothing else, it is great fun to talk about and to at least TRY to put
into words a subjective enthusiasm.
>The temptation to the director, then, is to indulge himself
> in non-linear-narrative filmmaking styles, while defending himself from the
> critical charges of the Roger Eberts with the rebuttal, "Hey, I'm making
movies
> about the subconscious, where it's all non-linear, just deep unresolved
conflicts,
> etc."
Haha. Yep, I know what you mean, and I most definitely don't think that
Lynch was playing such a game with connecting unrelated scenes
back-to-back, etc. in Lost Highway. I was quite surprised to find that so
many people DID think so, even my friends who are fans of other
surrealist, quirky directors. BUT, even if Lynch did put out a film of
such unrelated hodgepodge, I bet that I sure would enjoy it! So I am
admittedly not exactly an impartial commentator here. ;-)
Thanks again for the post, and best wishes.
Jeff
Rey Pamatmat
>
> I think I understand Ebert's frustration--despite his arrogance about it. The
> movie begins with what I found to be a tightly crafted suspenseful narrative--and
> I loved these parts--but it seems to become less and less coherent as time goes
> on. I wouldn't have any complaint if it was incoherent from beginning to end, but
> I don't see it that way. Instead it seems to begin well-structured only to fall
> apart finally and become a series of images and sounds.
>
Let me start off by saying, when I first returned to this newsgroup (I
left because of the Heather Graham bashing, AB was one of my faves...of
course, now everyone loves her don't they?) I was really turned off by
the LH discussions. People really seemed to want to speak in broad
storkes about types of narrative, POVs, etc. etc. which I deep down
thought were cop outs. Thankfully, though, I stuck with it and found
some very interesting and insightful views of LH.
In the end, though, my take on LH is much more concrete than what I
usually saw discussed. I think the bit excerpted above says it pretty
clearly (answering you own question). Although it took a lot of time for
me to hash out what I believed to be going on in LH, what I was
absolutely sure of when I left the theatre opening night was that the
movie was about someone going insane. LH is Fred Madison's descent into
madness. Hence, the tight narrative getting frayed and incoherent.
As to the nature of the insanity, that is quite decidedly up for debate.
My take is that Fred from the very beginning has put together a life
that is completely made up. I don't think Renee is actually his wife, I
don't think he knows Andy, I think Dick Laurent is just Dick Laurent, a
pornographer, and that Mr. Eddy is a figment of Fred's imagination, and
I don't think that Pete or Alice actually exist. How many times does
Fred talk to Renee when she's not on screen or is physically as far from
him as possible? How many times does it seem like he is going to or
should touch her, but he doesn't? When he calls home why should anyone
answer the phone when no one is there but an imagined wife? And when a
face is imposed on her own, whose is it but the Mystery Man, a seeming
symbol of Fred's insanity?
Fred is so nutty and pathetic, in fact, that he gets suspicious of a
wife he doesn't even have and he kills her. One fantasy fails so what
does he do? He simply replaces it with another. In this one, though,
he's young again and free. He's sexually virile instead of a premature
ejaculator. He has the esteem of a powerful man and is responsible to no
one but himself. But even this new delusion fails, the Mystery Man
catches up to him, and the world begins to literally blur and fall apart
as "Pete" remembers "that night" when he came into existence. And all
because the only thing he really wants and needs in the end Renee/Alice
he still can't have. It is, after all, when Alice says, "You can never
have me," that Pete turns back into Fred.
Other than that, all I've really done for myself is fill in the blanks
with extrapolations less concrete, but based on things the movie offers
up (and not on broad assumptions about style and inspiration). Dick
Laurent is a pornographer, Renee is his wife, and Alice perhaps a
character in one of the pornos he directs (which Fred has seen). He
kills him in an imagined jealous rage as he tells himself he will do and
gets caught.
I'm sure lots of folks out there will be upset by my paring down LH to a
movie with an actual plot, but I can't help it. Besides, in every Lynch
movie to date, there has been a plot or at the very least a theme. For
Blue Velvet and FWWM (and to some degree all of TP), the prevailing of
innocence; for Eraserhead and The Elephant Man, the inability to
separate physical disfigurement with spiritual/actual disfigurement;
etc.
Anyhow, excuse the length, but I hope this gives you at least one way of
looking at LH as an understandable movie. I really do believe that it is
Lynch's best movie. Not my favorite, but certainly the best. It does for
the psychological drama what Good Will Hunting (a movie I HATED) did for
the tortured white boy movie: it took all the common elements of them
and perfected them.
Rey
Marcelo E Mazzanti
Just to let you know that I loved your post and I agree almost absolutely
with you. Though I'm personally not sure as who's 'real' and who's not (Fred
or Pete), and I think there's also 'real world' in some places intermingling
with the basically 'not real' story (something typical Lynch-wise and that
can be discussed further), I'm fascinated by someone actually saying that
the film does indeed 'make sense' and is 'concrete' after giving it a lot of
thought. In fact, since 'Eraserhad' Lynch hasn't made a film that just did
make *no* sense at all.
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
The Honeywagon's Driver
Rey Pamatmat escribió en mensaje <35EB39...@concentric.net>...
>In the end, though, my take on LH is much more concrete than what I
>usually saw discussed. [...] what I was absolutely sure of when I left the
theatre >opening night was that the movie was about someone going insane. LH
is Fred >Madison's descent into madness. Hence, the tight narrative getting
frayed and >incoherent. [...]
>
>Rey
Christina Stanley
: everything, the fact that he gave a good review to that stupid Eddie Murphy
: movie a couple of years ago does in fact make me wonder about his motives
And which stupid Eddie Murphy movie would that be? Oh, you meant all of
them.
christina
--
______________________________________________________________
cris...@blarg.net
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing..if you can
fake that, you've got it made. Groucho Marx
Jeff Gower
> Although it took a lot of time for
> me to hash out what I believed to be going on in LH, what I was
> absolutely sure of when I left the theatre opening night was that the
> movie was about someone going insane. LH is Fred Madison's descent into
> madness.
Wow, you were actually "absolutely sure" of what LH was about after just
one viewing? I'm impressed. ;-)
> my take on LH is much more concrete than what I usually saw discussed
I enjoyed your interesting explanation of the movie, but like you say:
> As to the nature of the insanity, that is quite decidedly up for debate.
Exactly - and this is where so many folks get bogged down and frustrated
with this unique film - trying to piece together a tightly-cohesive linear
narrative flow, when like you say, there are a good number of approaches
to take, any of which works to a point, but neither of which are
"absolutely" convincing or satisfying. Hence the frustration. Who was
real? Who wasn't? Who came first? Etc.etc..
And guess what - it is not essential to "know" the answers to these
questions to love this film, and even to "get" it.
I think you have the essential idea, that of someone (portrayed as
Fred/Pete) who was jealously obsessed with a mysterious woman he could
never truly have - a man who was deranged enough to carry things too far.
And how he dealt with, or failed to deal with, his obsession,
failures/weaknesses, and guilt (like you say, his dementia) - that is what
the movie is all about. Nothing more, really - it is definitely not
simply a surrealist hodgepodge of unrelated scenes and images, as many
have suggested. It is really a very simple story, but with a completely
unique and 100% Lynchian POV. Now, as to whether this renders the film a
brilliant masterpiece or a waste of celluloid - that is totally up to the
viewer. There is nothing here to try to "prove", no deep message or
universal truth. Haha.
Here is what Lynch himself said about it:
"....it's really about a man who finds himself in a dire situation, and
has a kind of panic attack. He has a very difficult time dealing with the
consequences of his actions, and this fractures him in some way. I think
it's a very realistic, very straightforward case study of one person who
is at a loss to deal with the way things have turned out. But there is a
whole lot more in it. Any kind of explanation is going to be inadequate,
because a film is made to be seen."
> the Mystery Man, a seeming symbol of Fred's insanity?
I think "he" was not only a symbol, but an "invited" facilitator, of
sorts, of Fred/Pete's violent responses. That is why "he" was "there
right now...at your house...you invited me" - he was in the house when
Renee was killed (remember the two shadows walking by, just prior to the
inferred act? - plus the inferred 2nd party taking the video footage); he
spoke with Pete prior to Andy's murder; he was there when Laurent was
killed. He was, as Lynch said, "an abstraction", not real. And, in
addition to being an invited facilitator, he was also an
uninvited-but-ubiquitous reminder to Fred/Pete of his guilt: "And your
name...what the f#$% is your name?!!".
> in every Lynch
> movie to date, there has been a plot or at the very least a theme.
Indeed, and like you say, there is no reason to suggest that LH lacks the same.
> I really do believe that it is
> Lynch's best movie.
So do I, right up there with Eraserhead. There is not a moment in LH that
is not pure Lynch.
> It does for
> the psychological drama what Good Will Hunting (a movie I HATED) did for
> the tortured white boy movie: it took all the common elements of them
> and perfected them.
Amen! (However, I really liked Good Will Hunting!) ;-)
Jeff
Rey Pamatmat
>
> And guess what - it is not essential to "know" the answers to these
> questions to love this film, and even to "get" it.
Well, duh! :)
> Nothing more, really - it is definitely not
> simply a surrealist hodgepodge of unrelated scenes and images, as many
> have suggested. It is really a very simple story, but with a completely
> unique and 100% Lynchian POV.
Amen! Lynch is way too inspired by German Expressionism to allow for
complete surrealism. He needs a theme or at the very least a mood in
which his audience will be immersed. He's more Kokoschka than Artaud.
> Here is what Lynch himself said about it:
> "....it's really about a man who finds himself in a dire situation, and
> has a kind of panic attack. He has a very difficult time dealing with the
> consequences of his actions, and this fractures him in some way. I think
> it's a very realistic, very straightforward case study of one person who
> is at a loss to deal with the way things have turned out. But there is a
> whole lot more in it. Any kind of explanation is going to be inadequate,
> because a film is made to be seen."
Where's this from? The David Foster Wallace Premiere article?
> (However, I really liked Good Will Hunting!) ;-)
Well, there's no accounting for some people's tastes, but let me guess:
you're a tortured white boy, too? Right? ;-)
Anyway, all this return to Lost Highway is great, but did the guy who
was trying to find a better understanding of the movie benefit from our
banter at all? Where are you? I for one would like to know if you still
want to blame Lynch for making a bard movie.
Rey
tim fulmer
> Anyway, all this return to Lost Highway is great, but did the guy who
> was trying to find a better understanding of the movie benefit from our
> banter at all? Where are you? I for one would like to know if you still
> want to blame Lynch for making a bard movie.
>
Actually I purchased a copy--it was the only Lynch film I don't own--and I
watched it again, and I do see it very differently now. My take on it now, in
fact, is similar to some of the previous posters' opinions--namely, that
Pullman's character has been living such a one-sided artificial, unemotional
life that a sort of counterforce kicks in to bring him back to the "middle".
This force is a form of insanity which suddenly engulfs him in all the feelings
and emotions that he's been repressing all his life.
I also see more clearly that there really is a narrative arc here--no, actually
it's a circle. A wheel turning, showing us how Pullman's subconscious revolves
from the over-controlled, to the out-of-control, back to the over-controlled
(the ending), but presumably once again to the out-of-control (if the film were
to continue). This sort of wheel of the subconscious is what makes the film
work. I never saw this before in the film, but it's clear to me now.
Interestingly, this kind of narrative arc reminded me of Kubrick's The Shining,
so I immediately watched that film again, and the two films compare almost
exactly--it's amazing that I never noticed this before. Nicholson's arc in The
Shing is also a wheel turning going from totally-out-control (alcoholic before
the film begins), totally-in-control (blocked, cold, inhibited writer), totally
out-of-control (attempting to murder his family), totally-in-control (frozen in
the hedgemaze), and of course finally out control again (if the film were to
continue). Both the final scene of The Shining and Danny's big wheel
maneuvering in a circle are symbols of the wheel that turns through the
subconscious, bringing us back to where we were but then, of course, beginning
another revolution.
The catalyst for another revolution in The Shining is, of course, Room 237:
Danny who is young enters the room and leaves it looking older, while Jack who
is older enters the room embracing what he thinks is young only to find it old
and decaying. These experiences bring about Jack's insanity. There must be a
similar catalyst for Pullman's turning in Lost Highway. Any suggestions?
And another interesting point: the "average" of the out-of-control and
in-control is what might be called a middle ground, the middle path that weaves
back and forth never ending which, in The Shining, must be symbolized by the
first image in the film: the Sidewinder Road. There must be similar images in
Lost Highway. I've become very fascinated by that film, and it makes a
tremendous sister-piece to The Shining. Who'd ever guess?
trichome
<ful...@bioc.rice.edu> wrote:
>
> The catalyst for another revolution in The Shining is, of course, Room 237:
> Danny who is young enters the room and leaves it looking older, while Jack who
> is older enters the room embracing what he thinks is young only to find it old
> and decaying. These experiences bring about Jack's insanity. There must be a
> similar catalyst for Pullman's turning in Lost Highway. Any suggestions?
>
Although the scenes in Lost Highway take place at recognizable locations,
the scenes do not possess the physical continuity and contiguity of the campus
of the Overlook Hotel. I don't think it's a location which brings Fred
into flux,
rather that curiosity about violence and pornography, doubt, and jealousy cycle
within him like rising and falling hormone levels. In that moment before one
of his evil alters come to take Fred away, he is disoriented, where am I,
what am
I doing here, where is Renee? (It is happening again) The switch between calm
Fred and panicked Fred occurs as in a dream, not triggered by objects or
locations,
but itself triggering manifestations in an attempt to externally validate
the irreality
of his world, after he has stumbled across a guilty truth of his memory.
I think it would much harder to point out physical triggers in Lost
Highway...
> And another interesting point: the "average" of the out-of-control and
> in-control is what might be called a middle ground, the middle path that
weaves
> back and forth never ending which, in The Shining, must be symbolized by the
> first image in the film: the Sidewinder Road. There must be similar images in
> Lost Highway. I've become very fascinated by that film, and it makes a
> tremendous sister-piece to The Shining. Who'd ever guess?
The Shining is a descent into madness and murderous evil.
(hence the tortured, tortuous road up to the Overlook, and into the maze)
Narrowing, going down, and not to come back again.
Lost Highway is a Sisyphian failure to escape guilt, madness, and the
knowledge of one's own certain damnation through retreat into
an idealized false past. Fred Madison attempts to regress into this dream
childhood,
and out of the darkness he grew into. But he just ends up drivin' out on
that same
old dark Lost Highway, again.
The story arcs aren't quite parallel. Lost Highway is the remembrance
of Jack Torrance
in Hell, fondly trying to peel back the memories to some point when his
family were
happy. To before he struck Danny, before he lost his job. To before he'd
murdered
the idea of the Family, if not his actual family. After The Shining.
- Trichome
--
Multiple simultaneous parallel systemic failures = Y2k
Y2k arrives in <500 days,like a small Hollywood asteroid.
Read comp.software.year-2000, or get flattened.
Marcelo E Mazzanti
I'd like to think of another similarity.
At the time, nobody (OK, almost nobody, I'm talking mainstram here) liked
The Shining or even understood it, now everybody (OK, almost everybody etc.)
likes it and has little trouble understanding it -something which is no news
to Kubrick.
I hope some years from now the same happens to Lost Highway.
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
The Honeywagon Driver
tim fulmer escribió en mensaje <35EFF32C...@bioc.rice.edu>...
[Comparison between LH and The Shining.]
doppelcooper@hotmail.com®
<marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es> wrote:
>The Shining
There are, if I remember correctly, several "similarities" between The
Shining and Twin Peaks. For example. what the little boy (Danny???) writes
on the wall (/door??) redrum, with the letters backwards sometimes, and in
the mirror it says murder. Red Room. Well... it's something...
>I hope some years from now the same happens to Lost Highway.
Don't hold your breath ;-D
Marcelo E Mazzanti
doppel...@hotmail.com® escribió en mensaje
<35f1221f...@news.algonet.se>...
>
>>I hope some years from now the same happens to Lost Highway.
>
>Don't hold your breath ;-D
>______________________________________________________________
>doppel...@hotmail.com® The things I write is a code waiting to be broken
>COOPER: Who's the lady with the log? TRUMAN: We call her the Log Lady
Good thing you told me that, my skin was beginning to turn a beautiful shade
of purple...
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
The Honeywagon Driver
You Die Joe
As I recall watching the film the first time, I was totally enthralled with
>it right up until a very specific incident in the movie: when they opened
up the
>cell, and it was no longer Pullman's character. I still recall sitting
there in
>the theatre and thinking, "Oh shit, now anything goes."
This definitely causes an emotional shift! For me, it was the shift from
"yaaaahhh... what's going to happen?" to "whaaaa? What's going to happen?"
It's the point at which the movie really stops trying so hard to be scary.
YDJ
You Die Joe
>Fred is so nutty and pathetic, in fact, that he gets suspicious of a
>wife he doesn't even have and he kills her. One fantasy fails so what
>does he do? He simply replaces it with another. In this one, though,
>he's young again and free. He's sexually virile instead of a premature
>ejaculator.
To butt in, I always interpreted that scene a little differently: that Fred
just plain went soft, didn't finish anything at all, and left Renee with
nothing.
YDJ
doppelcooper@hotmail.com®
<marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es> wrote:
>>Don't hold your breath ;-D
>Good thing you told me that, my skin was beginning to turn a beautiful shade
>of purple...
Damn! I've failed once again in the quest to be Evil !®.........
But I haven't give up! I _will_ be Evil !® before the next fullmoon...
Ehhh... or something.. :-)
Hmmm... I wonder if I have some Jerry Springer-shows on tape? That always
make's me feel real Evil !® And if I'm not mistaken the fridge is almost
empty, and if I _don't_ go shopping I will have nothing to eat.... hahaha...
I will be back to my evil... er... Evil !® self within a day or so! And. eh.
I'll be back!
/Joshua Tif... Oooops! My bad! An honest mistake to write someone,
completely different from me persons name there!! ;-D
Ehhh.... Rey, I think I will follow your example and stop writing posts
early in the morning... :-\
Marcelo E Mazzanti
I completely agree. Anyway, what would be so bad about 'Oh shit, anything
goes?'
marcelo....@bcn.servicom.es
The Honeywagon Driver
( and his newly.acq...@i.see.red.and.i.should.really.be.in.bed.com )
You Die Joe escribió en mensaje <6ssb03$2...@journal.concentric.net>...