Question:
I rented Mulholland Drive today. Film starts off with a woman in the back of a limo (Laura Elena Harring) and the driver pulls out a pistol to kill her. A car coming around the corner smashes into the limo and saves the woman's life. She can't remember who she is or what she was supposed to do. She then bumps into Betty (Naomi Watts) who tries to help. They later become lovers.
This is probably David Lynch's weirdest film ever, if you thought Lost Highway was weird you've seen nothing yet. The first half of the film is actually very good, some bits at the beginning of the film are bit strange such as the restaurant scene, which has nothing to do with the lesbians. The second half makes absolutely no sense, some similarities with Twin Peaks and Lost Highway. I thought The Straight Story was very good and his next film is Darkened Room, I hope it's not weird.
Can anybody please fill me in on what this film was about?
There's a decent analysis of the film here:
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/
And the reaction of the forums is here.
The second half makes absolutely no sense
perhaps they were smoking crack when they made it
Absolutely beautiful film!
Makes perfect sense to me!
:lol:
It was supposed to be the pilot for a TV series. When the backers decided they didn’t want to fund Lynch’s weirdness he decided to hurriedly finish it as a feature, hence why everything makes even less "sense" than it usually does in one of his movies.
The guy’s disappearing up his own fundament if you ask me.
how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers! :)
Laura Elena Harring makes sense to me too. http://www.apdb24.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/drool.gif
Originally posted by Goblin
how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers! :)
Really? I thought that Lost Highway was pretty accessible if you didn't try to ask the usual questions (why? how? what for?) - granted he would have been kicked out of film school for something like that but if you don't get over obsessed on rational explanations it's a great film.
Mulholland is much of a sameness but probably even more extreme in it's overlapping/contradicting stories...
Still I'd choose a Lynch film anyday over the bland rubbish put out by Hollywood day in day out...
Originally posted by perfecta
Really? I thought that Lost Highway was pretty accessible if you didn't try to ask the usual questions (why? how? what for?) - granted he would have been kicked out of film school for something like that but if you don't get over obsessed on rational explanations it's a great film.
yes I agree, if you dont want a film with a plot, or want to know what the film was about then it is pretty acceptable :D
Originally posted by jonathan.e
It was supposed to be the pilot for a TV series. When the backers decided they didn’t want to fund Lynch’s weirdness he decided to hurriedly finish it as a feature, hence why everything makes even less "sense" than it usually does in one of his movies.
I'd love to have seen the TV show, I really would, looks like it would have been brilliant but I totally agree. What wound me up about the film was that I really got into it and cared about the characters. Fair enough if a film wants to have no plot, I can appreciate a Waking Life on its own level but it annoys me to be tricked into getting wrapped up in story and then have the director pull the rug out because he thinks it's clever. Also what is it with Lynch and midgets? Does he consciously think, "Hmm, I need a bit more weirdness in this scene, what's that midget's number again?" The man's a great director, The Straight Story was excellent in every way but enough self indulgence.
I think Mulholland Drive was the best film I have seen this year, but then again I like Lynch.
Lost Highway on the other hand I have seen 3 times now and if someone would like to explain it to me I am all ears.
The most popular theory is that after Fred kills his wife he is in denial and enters into a delusion that he is another man: Pete Dayton. Notice how OTT this alter-ego is. Younger, friendly with a gangster and with women throwing themselves at him. It's a fantasy. But eventually the delusion breaks down as his real life comes to haunt him, mainly in the form of Renee/Alice who surfaces to to his obsession with her that drove him to kill her. Incidentally this darker side of Fred is what the Mystery Man represents. Most important line in the film for me is "I like to remember things my own way... how I remember them. Not necessarily the way they happened".
If you want to know more it's worth searching on the internet for more detailed theories. There is no fully satisfactory explanation that covers every event in the film though, but I think that's sort of the point.
Why is all obsessed with why? what happened? who did that? Film is more picture and sound than plot and story. Want a good story and strong plot with all the details explained then you should read a book.
Originally posted by mercurialdeposit
Why is all obsessed with why? what happened? who did that? Film is more picture and sound than plot and story.
that is the craziest thing Ive read (unless your talking about porno ;) )... a film needs a plot and story! Im sure Lynch has a plot in there somewhere even if only he can understand it :D
Originally posted by Superstar P.J.
The most popular theory is that after Fred kills his wife he is in denial and enters into a delusion that he is another man: Pete Dayton. Notice how OTT this alter-ego is. Younger, friendly with a gangster and with women throwing themselves at him. It's a fantasy. But eventually the delusion breaks down as his real life comes to haunt him, mainly in the form of Renee/Alice who surfaces to to his obsession with her that drove him to kill her. Incidentally this darker side of Fred is what the Mystery Man represents. Most important line in the film for me is "I like to remember things my own way... how I remember them. Not necessarily the way they happened".
If you want to know more it's worth searching on the internet for more detailed theories. There is no fully satisfactory explanation that covers every event in the film though, but I think that's sort of the point.
Thanks, thats an interesting point. I will have a look round for more theories when i get a chance ;)
Originally posted by Goblin
...a film needs a plot and story...
Why?
Originally posted by Morpheus2000
...his next film is Darkened Room, I hope it's not weird.
According to a review on IMDB it's a short film available on his website. You'll need to be a member to access it but you probably won't want to as the review confirms that it is indeed weird. :)
Originally posted by Jazzatola
Why?
because a film without a plot wouldnt hold peoples interest. Why make a film with no plot? what would you be watching exactly?
porno films dont count either!
Originally posted by Goblin
because a film without a plot wouldnt hold peoples interest. Why make a film with no plot? what would you be watching exactly?
I presume your comments are actually expressing a personal preference. Do you actually have any evidence of this apathy?
There are many films which don't utilise conventional narrative that plenty of people find engaging. Film is essentially the combination of moving images and sound. There's nothing to say there has to be a plot. Art forms just aren't like that. It's like saying poetry has to rhyme. It's just not true. David Lynch is the mainstream tip of the iceberg.
And where exactly is the boundary that separates a film with plot and a film without plot?
well if you appreciate films as an Art Form, I doubt you'll need a plot ... I watch Films for entertainment, so I cant find enjoyment from a random combination of moving images and sound :(
Originally posted by Goblin
well if you appreciate films as an Art Form, I doubt you'll need a plot ... I watch Films for entertainment, so I cant find enjoyment from a random combination of moving images and sound :(
I doubt I could either, but I don't see how that comment is at all relevant to the films being discussed here - there's nothing at all "random" about <I>Lost Highway</I>, a film that gets more intricate and fascinating with every viewing!
To expand on what Jazzatola said, rather too many film-makers (and audiences!) have a very limited idea of what the medium can do - they treat it as little more than filmed theatre, whereas in the hands of someone like Lynch it's far closer to music, an art form that's often abstract and non-narrative but nonetheless shaped and structured according to a precisely determined pattern.
The worst thing you can do with a Lynch film is watch it purely on a surface narrative level, as that's a virtual guarantee that you'll be bored and frustrated - just as you'd be equally bored and frustrated listening to, say, a Shostakovich symphony if your sole aim was to find out what it "meant".
There's a huge amount of entertainment in <I>Mulholland Drive</I> - more than in almost any other film I've seen recently - but it makes demands of its audience that the likes of, say, <I>Harry Potter</I> are careful to avoid. And if you're not prepared to do the work (which at the lowest level includes keeping an open mind), you're not going to get anything like as much as you could out of it.
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I doubt I could either, but I don't see how that comment is at all relevant to the films being discussed here - there's nothing at all "random" about <I>Lost Highway</I>, a film that gets more intricate and fascinating with every viewing!
Originally posted by Goblin
Im sure Lynch has a plot in there somewhere
I wasnt referring to Lost Highway ;) just saying I couldnt enjoy a film with no plot.
My apologies - I was clearly confused by your use of the phrases "<I>how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers!</I> " and, in response to another comment on the same film, "<I>yes I agree, if you dont want a film with a plot, or want to know what the film was about then it is pretty acceptable</I>"
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen, so I apologise unreservedly.
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen, so I apologise unreservedly.
LOL ... after thinking about it I decided Lost Highway must have had a plot, it was just one I couldnt follow :)
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen.
You have been watching to many David Lynch films I think Mr Brooke. ;)
As a fan of Lost Highway, I was somewhat amazed to hear the following said on Celebrity Big Brother 2 this morning at about 6.00am:
Les Dennis, to camera: "Bill Pullman is flying in, he wants to respond to Goldie's criticism of Lost Highway - Goldie thinks he should have looked miffed, when he just looked puzzled."
Forgive the cross-posting from the Big Brother thread, but I thought the insights of a drum'n'bass rent-a-goon and the ex-host of Family Fortunes may help this debate along a little.
was the benefit that anecdote brought to the thread really greater than the shame inherent in admitting you watched big brother?
probably :D
uuuh... I saw it by accident... becaaauuse...
balls. :(
Watched this again recently and just think it is an amazinf film for lots of reasons however, have wondered if there is a definative answer to the mystery? I have my own idea but wondered if Lynch had ever said what the hell is it all about?
He gives some clues with this list:David Lynch's 10 Clues to Unlocking This Thriller:
Pay particular attention in the beginning of the film: at least two clues are revealed before the credits.
Notice appearances of the red lampshade.
Can you hear the title of the film that Adam Kesher is auditioning actresses for? Is it mentioned again?
An accident is a terrible event... notice the location of the accident.
Who gives a key, and why?
Notice the robe, the ashtray, the coffee cup.
What is felt, realized and gathered at the club Silencio?
Did talent alone help Camilla?
Notice the occurrences surrounding the man behind Winkies.
Where is Aunt Ruth?
Any ideas?
He'll never give a definitive solution; he refuses to get into in-depth discussions regarding the meaning of any of his films. The clues were really only a marketing trick.
I suggest you check out this thread , which discusses the supposedly "meaningless" plot of the film.
I'm finding it a bit frustrating that although fairly complete explanations of the movie have been generally available and well publicized for years now, people are still repeating the myth that the film makes no sense and has no coherent interpretation. I'm tempted to edit together a chronological cut of the film to show how straightforward it really is.
www.dvdtracks.com appears to be gone, unfortunately. They hosted a great fan commentary for Mulholland Dr. that discussed the generally accepted interpretation of the plot, as well as loose ends and how it came to be this way. If you can find it, it's well worth a listen.
Very frustrating film. Didn't enjoy it at all. I didn't 'get it', I'm not going to pretend I did either, seems like the kind of film alot of people (not all mind) will say they understand to feel ace or whatever. I loved 'Lost Highway', that was my kind of weird, but this just annoyed the hell out of me. I guess this is film falls under the heading of 'Cinematic Marmite'.
well i love Mullholland Drive and i hate marmite, so where does that leave me? :D
Outside the Hollywood mainstream there are directors who work in a more experimental vein. David Lynch is a the most famous experimental filmmaker working today and he is a surrealist, which is a major experimental artform concerned with the unconscious and the irrational. This means Lynchs films are open to many interpretations and you'll have to do some of the work yourself. If you don't want to engage with a film or piece of art on that level than Lynch and surrealism isn't for you.
Here is a useful link:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Surrealism
Far as I understand it - the movie is about the control of Hollywood by a select few individuals and a number of large organisations.
An absolute diarrhoea of a film. A man trading on his past.
^ I take it you're going to back that comment up with your reasoned thoughts about the film? Otherwise what exactly was the point in posting it? :shrug:
he probably lost the will to live (and certainly type) after watching this film, I know I did.
Excellent film this. Utterly bizarre, but bizarrely compelling.
Not for everyone though. :suspect:
Nice kiss too :n0rty:
Ok, maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand this movie.
I thought it was long, boring, and completely incoherent.
The film seemed to be pointlessly vague.
Awww c'mon! You can do better than that! ;)
You were "intelligent enough" to watch it in the first place! Start with what bit's you didn't like and then what bits (if any) you did like! And then why you don't think you understood it! What do you think it's about?
(sorry if I came across as harsh previously, didn't mean to be)
Longest ever resurrection? A little less that 3 years... It even has Michael Brooke commenting in it! :)
An absolute diarrhoea of a film. A man trading on his past.
Trading on his past? But his past (at its most successful) was very much in line with the surreal elements of Mulholland Dr. as well as the demands he makes on the audience. Surely if this is rubbish, so is most of his earlier output?
You'll enjoy it a lot more if you don't try to understand it.
I've got to admit - I didnt get the film at all. Bronsos link posted earlier was a real eye opener.
What really gets me is those people that obviously didnt understand the film - and yet still championed it. Saying things like "don't try to understand it" and "you're not supposed to get it".
What the hell is there to enjoy for over two hours, when you don't understand what's going on???? :shrug:
(besides the girl on girl action - which im all for!) :thumbs:
This is probably David Lynch's weirdest film ever, if you thought Lost Highway was weird you've seen nothing yet. The first half of the film is actually very good, some bits at the beginning of the film are bit strange such as the restaurant scene, which has nothing to do with the lesbians. The second half makes absolutely no sense, some similarities with Twin Peaks and Lost Highway. I thought The Straight Story was very good and his next film is Darkened Room, I hope it's not weird.
Can anybody please fill me in on what this film was about?
Answers:
There's a decent analysis of the film here:
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2001/10/23/mulholland_drive_analysis/
Answers:
And the reaction of the forums is here.
Answers:
The second half makes absolutely no sense
perhaps they were smoking crack when they made it
Answers:
Absolutely beautiful film!
Makes perfect sense to me!
:lol:
Answers:
It was supposed to be the pilot for a TV series. When the backers decided they didn’t want to fund Lynch’s weirdness he decided to hurriedly finish it as a feature, hence why everything makes even less "sense" than it usually does in one of his movies.
The guy’s disappearing up his own fundament if you ask me.
Answers:
how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers! :)
Answers:
Laura Elena Harring makes sense to me too. http://www.apdb24.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/drool.gif
Answers:
Originally posted by Goblin
how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers! :)
Really? I thought that Lost Highway was pretty accessible if you didn't try to ask the usual questions (why? how? what for?) - granted he would have been kicked out of film school for something like that but if you don't get over obsessed on rational explanations it's a great film.
Mulholland is much of a sameness but probably even more extreme in it's overlapping/contradicting stories...
Still I'd choose a Lynch film anyday over the bland rubbish put out by Hollywood day in day out...
Answers:
Originally posted by perfecta
Really? I thought that Lost Highway was pretty accessible if you didn't try to ask the usual questions (why? how? what for?) - granted he would have been kicked out of film school for something like that but if you don't get over obsessed on rational explanations it's a great film.
yes I agree, if you dont want a film with a plot, or want to know what the film was about then it is pretty acceptable :D
Answers:
Originally posted by jonathan.e
It was supposed to be the pilot for a TV series. When the backers decided they didn’t want to fund Lynch’s weirdness he decided to hurriedly finish it as a feature, hence why everything makes even less "sense" than it usually does in one of his movies.
I'd love to have seen the TV show, I really would, looks like it would have been brilliant but I totally agree. What wound me up about the film was that I really got into it and cared about the characters. Fair enough if a film wants to have no plot, I can appreciate a Waking Life on its own level but it annoys me to be tricked into getting wrapped up in story and then have the director pull the rug out because he thinks it's clever. Also what is it with Lynch and midgets? Does he consciously think, "Hmm, I need a bit more weirdness in this scene, what's that midget's number again?" The man's a great director, The Straight Story was excellent in every way but enough self indulgence.
Answers:
I think Mulholland Drive was the best film I have seen this year, but then again I like Lynch.
Lost Highway on the other hand I have seen 3 times now and if someone would like to explain it to me I am all ears.
Answers:
The most popular theory is that after Fred kills his wife he is in denial and enters into a delusion that he is another man: Pete Dayton. Notice how OTT this alter-ego is. Younger, friendly with a gangster and with women throwing themselves at him. It's a fantasy. But eventually the delusion breaks down as his real life comes to haunt him, mainly in the form of Renee/Alice who surfaces to to his obsession with her that drove him to kill her. Incidentally this darker side of Fred is what the Mystery Man represents. Most important line in the film for me is "I like to remember things my own way... how I remember them. Not necessarily the way they happened".
If you want to know more it's worth searching on the internet for more detailed theories. There is no fully satisfactory explanation that covers every event in the film though, but I think that's sort of the point.
Answers:
Why is all obsessed with why? what happened? who did that? Film is more picture and sound than plot and story. Want a good story and strong plot with all the details explained then you should read a book.
Answers:
Originally posted by mercurialdeposit
Why is all obsessed with why? what happened? who did that? Film is more picture and sound than plot and story.
that is the craziest thing Ive read (unless your talking about porno ;) )... a film needs a plot and story! Im sure Lynch has a plot in there somewhere even if only he can understand it :D
Answers:
Originally posted by Superstar P.J.
The most popular theory is that after Fred kills his wife he is in denial and enters into a delusion that he is another man: Pete Dayton. Notice how OTT this alter-ego is. Younger, friendly with a gangster and with women throwing themselves at him. It's a fantasy. But eventually the delusion breaks down as his real life comes to haunt him, mainly in the form of Renee/Alice who surfaces to to his obsession with her that drove him to kill her. Incidentally this darker side of Fred is what the Mystery Man represents. Most important line in the film for me is "I like to remember things my own way... how I remember them. Not necessarily the way they happened".
If you want to know more it's worth searching on the internet for more detailed theories. There is no fully satisfactory explanation that covers every event in the film though, but I think that's sort of the point.
Thanks, thats an interesting point. I will have a look round for more theories when i get a chance ;)
Answers:
Originally posted by Goblin
...a film needs a plot and story...
Why?
Originally posted by Morpheus2000
...his next film is Darkened Room, I hope it's not weird.
According to a review on IMDB it's a short film available on his website. You'll need to be a member to access it but you probably won't want to as the review confirms that it is indeed weird. :)
Answers:
Originally posted by Jazzatola
Why?
because a film without a plot wouldnt hold peoples interest. Why make a film with no plot? what would you be watching exactly?
porno films dont count either!
Answers:
Originally posted by Goblin
because a film without a plot wouldnt hold peoples interest. Why make a film with no plot? what would you be watching exactly?
I presume your comments are actually expressing a personal preference. Do you actually have any evidence of this apathy?
There are many films which don't utilise conventional narrative that plenty of people find engaging. Film is essentially the combination of moving images and sound. There's nothing to say there has to be a plot. Art forms just aren't like that. It's like saying poetry has to rhyme. It's just not true. David Lynch is the mainstream tip of the iceberg.
And where exactly is the boundary that separates a film with plot and a film without plot?
Answers:
well if you appreciate films as an Art Form, I doubt you'll need a plot ... I watch Films for entertainment, so I cant find enjoyment from a random combination of moving images and sound :(
Answers:
Originally posted by Goblin
well if you appreciate films as an Art Form, I doubt you'll need a plot ... I watch Films for entertainment, so I cant find enjoyment from a random combination of moving images and sound :(
I doubt I could either, but I don't see how that comment is at all relevant to the films being discussed here - there's nothing at all "random" about <I>Lost Highway</I>, a film that gets more intricate and fascinating with every viewing!
To expand on what Jazzatola said, rather too many film-makers (and audiences!) have a very limited idea of what the medium can do - they treat it as little more than filmed theatre, whereas in the hands of someone like Lynch it's far closer to music, an art form that's often abstract and non-narrative but nonetheless shaped and structured according to a precisely determined pattern.
The worst thing you can do with a Lynch film is watch it purely on a surface narrative level, as that's a virtual guarantee that you'll be bored and frustrated - just as you'd be equally bored and frustrated listening to, say, a Shostakovich symphony if your sole aim was to find out what it "meant".
There's a huge amount of entertainment in <I>Mulholland Drive</I> - more than in almost any other film I've seen recently - but it makes demands of its audience that the likes of, say, <I>Harry Potter</I> are careful to avoid. And if you're not prepared to do the work (which at the lowest level includes keeping an open mind), you're not going to get anything like as much as you could out of it.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I doubt I could either, but I don't see how that comment is at all relevant to the films being discussed here - there's nothing at all "random" about <I>Lost Highway</I>, a film that gets more intricate and fascinating with every viewing!
Originally posted by Goblin
Im sure Lynch has a plot in there somewhere
I wasnt referring to Lost Highway ;) just saying I couldnt enjoy a film with no plot.
Answers:
My apologies - I was clearly confused by your use of the phrases "<I>how could it be as bad as Lost Highway? that wasnt even a film, it was just Lynch taking the ****** out of viewers!</I> " and, in response to another comment on the same film, "<I>yes I agree, if you dont want a film with a plot, or want to know what the film was about then it is pretty acceptable</I>"
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen, so I apologise unreservedly.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen, so I apologise unreservedly.
LOL ... after thinking about it I decided Lost Highway must have had a plot, it was just one I couldnt follow :)
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
In retrospect, I really can't see how this confusion could possibly have arisen.
You have been watching to many David Lynch films I think Mr Brooke. ;)
Answers:
As a fan of Lost Highway, I was somewhat amazed to hear the following said on Celebrity Big Brother 2 this morning at about 6.00am:
Les Dennis, to camera: "Bill Pullman is flying in, he wants to respond to Goldie's criticism of Lost Highway - Goldie thinks he should have looked miffed, when he just looked puzzled."
Forgive the cross-posting from the Big Brother thread, but I thought the insights of a drum'n'bass rent-a-goon and the ex-host of Family Fortunes may help this debate along a little.
Answers:
was the benefit that anecdote brought to the thread really greater than the shame inherent in admitting you watched big brother?
probably :D
Answers:
uuuh... I saw it by accident... becaaauuse...
balls. :(
Answers:
Watched this again recently and just think it is an amazinf film for lots of reasons however, have wondered if there is a definative answer to the mystery? I have my own idea but wondered if Lynch had ever said what the hell is it all about?
He gives some clues with this list:David Lynch's 10 Clues to Unlocking This Thriller:
Pay particular attention in the beginning of the film: at least two clues are revealed before the credits.
Notice appearances of the red lampshade.
Can you hear the title of the film that Adam Kesher is auditioning actresses for? Is it mentioned again?
An accident is a terrible event... notice the location of the accident.
Who gives a key, and why?
Notice the robe, the ashtray, the coffee cup.
What is felt, realized and gathered at the club Silencio?
Did talent alone help Camilla?
Notice the occurrences surrounding the man behind Winkies.
Where is Aunt Ruth?
Any ideas?
Answers:
He'll never give a definitive solution; he refuses to get into in-depth discussions regarding the meaning of any of his films. The clues were really only a marketing trick.
Answers:
I suggest you check out this thread , which discusses the supposedly "meaningless" plot of the film.
I'm finding it a bit frustrating that although fairly complete explanations of the movie have been generally available and well publicized for years now, people are still repeating the myth that the film makes no sense and has no coherent interpretation. I'm tempted to edit together a chronological cut of the film to show how straightforward it really is.
www.dvdtracks.com appears to be gone, unfortunately. They hosted a great fan commentary for Mulholland Dr. that discussed the generally accepted interpretation of the plot, as well as loose ends and how it came to be this way. If you can find it, it's well worth a listen.
Answers:
Very frustrating film. Didn't enjoy it at all. I didn't 'get it', I'm not going to pretend I did either, seems like the kind of film alot of people (not all mind) will say they understand to feel ace or whatever. I loved 'Lost Highway', that was my kind of weird, but this just annoyed the hell out of me. I guess this is film falls under the heading of 'Cinematic Marmite'.
Answers:
well i love Mullholland Drive and i hate marmite, so where does that leave me? :D
Answers:
Outside the Hollywood mainstream there are directors who work in a more experimental vein. David Lynch is a the most famous experimental filmmaker working today and he is a surrealist, which is a major experimental artform concerned with the unconscious and the irrational. This means Lynchs films are open to many interpretations and you'll have to do some of the work yourself. If you don't want to engage with a film or piece of art on that level than Lynch and surrealism isn't for you.
Here is a useful link:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Surrealism
Answers:
Far as I understand it - the movie is about the control of Hollywood by a select few individuals and a number of large organisations.
Answers:
An absolute diarrhoea of a film. A man trading on his past.
Answers:
^ I take it you're going to back that comment up with your reasoned thoughts about the film? Otherwise what exactly was the point in posting it? :shrug:
Answers:
he probably lost the will to live (and certainly type) after watching this film, I know I did.
Answers:
Excellent film this. Utterly bizarre, but bizarrely compelling.
Not for everyone though. :suspect:
Answers:
Nice kiss too :n0rty:
Answers:
Ok, maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand this movie.
I thought it was long, boring, and completely incoherent.
The film seemed to be pointlessly vague.
Answers:
Awww c'mon! You can do better than that! ;)
You were "intelligent enough" to watch it in the first place! Start with what bit's you didn't like and then what bits (if any) you did like! And then why you don't think you understood it! What do you think it's about?
(sorry if I came across as harsh previously, didn't mean to be)
Answers:
Longest ever resurrection? A little less that 3 years... It even has Michael Brooke commenting in it! :)
An absolute diarrhoea of a film. A man trading on his past.
Trading on his past? But his past (at its most successful) was very much in line with the surreal elements of Mulholland Dr. as well as the demands he makes on the audience. Surely if this is rubbish, so is most of his earlier output?
Answers:
You'll enjoy it a lot more if you don't try to understand it.
Answers:
I've got to admit - I didnt get the film at all. Bronsos link posted earlier was a real eye opener.
What really gets me is those people that obviously didnt understand the film - and yet still championed it. Saying things like "don't try to understand it" and "you're not supposed to get it".
What the hell is there to enjoy for over two hours, when you don't understand what's going on???? :shrug:
(besides the girl on girl action - which im all for!) :thumbs:
1 2