Mulholland Drive (dont read this if you havent seen it!)

[Kent]

I saw this movie yesterday and I liked it alot! The movie is 2,5 hours but it felt like far less than that because it was so interesting.

It was somewhat clear and I could follow it pretty good until she found that blue box i think. I think that was when it started to get weird.

1. The girl that the movie excecutives wanted to have, was it Betty or Diane?
2. THe director, did he know Betty or was it Diane?

At first I thought that the murderattempt was ordered by the executives, cause they wanted that new girl, but then it turned out to be Diane, that order it.

It's kinda hard to ask questions about this film, since it gets so complitcated, but it's worth a try.

One other thing, Lynch did the same thing with the actors in his movie "Lost Highway", where he used the same actor (Patricia Arquette) for two roles, that you also mixed up.

I'm gonna see it one more time, this movie. Certain movies needs to be seen twice.

Anyway, lets hope we can discuss this one!

[Sola]

It's been some time since I saw it and it was confusing enough 10 minutes after the film!! All I know is that I thought I was following it until they got to that "blue perfomance" for lack of a better description. One theory was that the two women were the same. One arrived wide-eyed in Hollywood and eventually became the other. That would be the "cruel Hollywood" theory. What do you think happened. I need to see it again to be a better discussor.
Solang

[Kent]

Hmm...a rather interesting view actually. In fact, a very interesting view of it.
Never thought of it that way, but now when you say it, it sounds intelligent.

It sure could be that Lynch had a point with the Hollywood thing, that people fail, and it could very well be the transformation of Betty into Diane, caused by failure in Hollywood. Even Dians trade suits; a waiter.

Interesting thought.

Im gonna watch the movie again and then I'll get back to you on this subject. THere are of course more questions to answer too :)

[fuzzy_nolan]

I'm not going to shove my interpretation of Mulholland Drive down your throats because I'd rather everyone discover their own.

I will say however, that in an era of cinema where so many films require you to 'check your brain at the door' for pure sensory masturbation, Mulholland Drive was a breath of fresh air. And not only in terms of its cerebrality, but as a film in its own right.

One of my favourite films of recent years.

[fuzzy_nolan]

'I know there is a real world and a dream world and I shan't confuse them,' Judy Garland says in The Pirate.

It seems that David Lynch has no compunctions about integrating the two. Thus, in Mulholland Drive, there are aspects of the plot and motivations etc., that cannot readily be explained by the normal causal effects.

In a dream world, anything can happen. In Mulholland Drive it does.


By the way, if you are interested in having any number of interpretations on a platter, try this link: Mulholand Drive: IMDb User Comments Index (http://us.imdb.com/CommentsIndex?166924)

[Kent]

The best scene (except maybe when they two havew sex ;)) is most definetly when the go to the theater.

It's a totally brilliant scene. The actor that plays the man in the theater (he that speaks) is awesome!

It gives my such a cool feeling when i watch that scene. Such power. He talks really cool and has a cool voice, and i gotta say that spanish is cool. Its hard to explain exactly what i mean but anyway...its a terrific scene!

[jrummer]

After recommedations from a few people about this movie, we rented it. Sorry to say, it was not that good. David Lynch should bring it back a notch. The crazy plot concepts are getting old. Plenty of films out there can bend the rules and not totally confuse the audience into un-enjoying the film.

[jacobic216]

I loved Mulholland Drive. I have all kinds of wild theories about the film but I'd also like to let people make their own. I'll just say this, I thought it was a better interpretation into the mind of a schitzophrenic delusionally ill person than A Beautiful Mind.

[tabuno]

jrummer's favorites seem to follow more along mainstream movies that are more concrete and situated in solid reality. Myself, on other hand, did find Mulholland Drive intriguing, confusing and requiring something of a twisted mind - I can't comment on it because I'd need to see it again and again before I could make any intelligent comment that anybody would understand. When I find the time.

[jrummer]

Please don't comment on what movies I like based on 15 movies. I love Happiness, Kids, Gummo, American Movie etc etc. I even liked twin peaks....i just dont like seeing the same thing over and over again.

[jacobic216]

A good thinker movie is one that makes you think about it for days after you've seen it. Movies that make you think are designed to make you want to go back and see it again. Usual Suspects, Mulholland Drive, Sixth Sense and Memento are all examples of movies that leave you guessing even after the movie is over. I still find all of them to be ambiguous after seeing them a second time. Mulholland Drive is not even comprehendable unless you watch it a few times and develop some theories. I still don't know exactly what happened and I've seen it plenty of times.

[fuzzy_nolan]

There seems to be two categories of "thinker" movies, as Jacobic 216 put it. There the type where there just a twist at the end that explains the entire movie. And on the second viewing, all the clues are evidently geared towards that reading. I wouldn't really say these are "thinker" movies, because at the end of the movie the hand it was holding is totally revealed. There's not much thinking required.

But then there's the other sort, where any number of interpretations can be valid and multiple viewings are required to discover even one of them for yourself.

[tabuno]

Ok jrummer, I'll use your own words about the movies you like, "I love Happiness, Kids, Gummo, American Movie etc etc. " I rest my case. (I had a really crappy week, last week.)

[jrummer]

How are those movies plus so many others like them, not be "thinker" type movies? And who says there are 2 types of thinking movies? How on earth can any of you define a "thinker" movie? Each person has their own loose definition. I tend not to define movies, I just like them. Whether its Ace Ventura or Memento (which wasn't nearly as good as Following). This forum could be a lot better served if we just talked about the movie, why we liked it or disliked it (with embelleshments), and kept the judgements out of it. This is the exact reason why I never read reviews of movies, the Catch 22......If had listened to any of them, I could have missed a lot of gems along the way.

I just watched Blue Velvet again and realized how Lynch loves the close up burning flame or whatever.....it gets old. I guess that't how this whole thing got started. At the same time, I love Dune.....on every level.

[tabuno]

Anybody who can appreciate Dune can't be all bad. In fact there's a lot of potential at work here. But there were two versions of Dune, though, so the verdict could be considered still out depending on which version one refers to. There's William Hurt and there's Kyle Maclaughan (or however you spell his name from Twin Peaks).

[jacobic216]

Maybe I misinterpreted "Thinker." I'd divide it into two also: Deep thought provoking and Mind Fuck. The mind fuck movies are what I was refering to. Movies like Mulholland Drive are designed to mess with your mind intentionally, and you can't help but think about it. Many movies are thought provoking, not so many of the mainstream hollywood films though.

I never saw the remake of Dune but I also enjoyed the original.

[jrummer]

What you meant to say is, YOU think most Hollywood movies are not thought provoking. I am sure you will find many people that believe Hollywood movies are thought provoking. Why do people on this message board think their opinion is rule? And please remember.....it's entertainment.

[tabuno]

The remake of Dune lost some of the edginess of the original version and some of the more penetrating and substantive details were left out. The original Dune had a more sci fi feel and the remake felt more generic, movie production, mainstream feel. I much preferred the original version.

[jacobic216]

This remake of Dune hasn't been too hi on my list of movies to catch. I'd much rather go rent Martin or THX-1138 if I feel like I need to catch up a bit. Even Manhunter is higher on my list (it's pretty hi now that I've seen Red Dragon).

Much of what comes out of Hollywood is dreck IN MY OPINION. But that's what this forum is all about. Most of Hollywood movies can be entertaining but it's not necessarily thought provoking or quality filmmaking. Recent Hollywood movies don't intrigue me like movies done out of Hollywood. And every now and then, they make a masterpiece.

I'll say it like I told my friends as we left the Star Wars II premiere, "It's just a movie, get over it." Yes it is entertainment. But if I'm not entertained I'm going to complain, even if no one is listening. I wouldn't feel right saying that about Mulholland Drive, though. It's true but it's not right. Is the Mona Lisa just a painting? or Stairway to Heaven just a song? I think yes :-(

[Meejoir]

I saw this film at the Regus London Film Festival on tour last year and loved it. I love movies that make you think and my God, Mulholland Drive makes you think very, very hard.

I have seen it again since and was even more confused and judging from the peoples' conversations in the pub next door to the cinema afterwards it seemed they also loved it but had very little clue what the hell was going on!! I'm not sure even David Lynch knows if the truth be known!

I'm not really sure what the devil it was about and I'm not really sure I want to know either, because I loved it anyway. It was worth paying the admission fee alone to be entertained by the uttter claptrap that the people I spoke to afterwards were talking, as I am quite sure they didn't have a clue either!!!!

Although when I read all the comments here, there will be a thousand different explanations to a film I am sure people will still be talking about in a hundred years time.

[Ilker81x]

Once and for all, David Lynch is an artist and while he is a filmmaker, I think it important that people NOT view his films as movies. They are NOT conventional, and they are NOT quintessential Hollywood fare. They are meant to be viewed from a different standpoint, from the perspective of viewing a painting. Every painter has a style and sometimes they go through a "period." Picasso had his "blue" period, and Georgia O'Keefe had a series of paintings with skulls on them. David Lynch is no different...he makes films as paintings, where there IS a story to it, but not in a conventional "This is the main character and this is what happens to him" kind of way. His stories are symbolic, where characters are representative of something rather than literal people. "Mulholland Drive" is no different, and I think it's unfair to say he makes the same movie over and over again. That's like saying Monet did the same painting over and over again. That is David Lynch's style. He will always bring you into a world where you never know who is who or where you are, full of surreal depictions of classic Americana warped by the evil that is inherent and festering beneath the surface. That was what "Blue Velvet" was about. That was part of what "Wild at Heart" and "Lost Highway" were about, at least in a visual sense. That was part of what "Mulholland Drive" was about in its semi-mockery of Hollywood culture. I think this will always be there because that is Lynch's style. To claim he is making the same movie over and over again is not fair. Sure we as an audience are involved in his work on the level that he is trying to communicate something to us, albeit obscure and surreal, but he likes confusing us. I can understand why someone might get disappointed at his style because eventually an artist whould grow, but I think Lynch's style does grow in more subtle ways. "Lost Highway" was a far more '90's industrial film both visually and musically (NIN, Manson, Rammstein) than anything else he'd done. "Mulholland Drive" might've been a return to ground he felt was more familiar and comfortable, but that's okay. It's his right as an artist to do what comes naturally to him. If you don't like it, that's okay...but I don't think it's right to say he's doing the same thing. He's not. He moves in odd directions, and sometimes comes back, but everything has his mark and those elements that define his style, that make his movies distinguishable from films by any other director. That's what an artist does.

[Johann]

I finally saw Mulholland Dr. last night. I think it's the most dramatic film ever set in Hollywood. In the Sunset Boulevard vein, I liked how it portrayed Mullholland as some sort of Xanadu.

About a half hour into the film I was addicted.

You ever watch a movie when something coincidental to your life flashes on screen? One of the lead actresses mentions that she is from Deep River Canada. I was born there! I never thought in a million years that my HOMETOWN would be a part of a movie! And not just ANY movie! A Lynch film! After that revelation, I was zeroed in. David! How on earth did you decide on Deep River? Did you have canadian screenwriting help? I will not rest until I find out how this "small world" coincidence happened....(BTW just a travel plug if anyone wants to visit: Deep River is about 2 hours north of Ottawa- the country's capital- and is a short drive from Chalk River [where there is a HUGE nuclear plant] and the military base Petawawa where my father was stationed in 1975. And the massively beautiful Algonquin National Park is immediately to the west).

As for the film, my only advice for people seeing this flick for the first time: Try to let the images speak for themselves. I understood the characters' body language the most. The script only leaves you breadcrumbs of hope for a streamlined narrative.
It could be incredibly frustrating to someone who hated 2001: A Space Odyssey.

You have been warned.

[Ilker81x]

Johann,

I dare say it's partial coincidence and partial Lynch's strange sense of surrealism and humor. You'll notice that Lumberton in "Blue Velvet" is meant to imply the same Pacific Northwestern atmosphere that became so prevalent in "Twin Peaks." And yet, it's also a town in North Carolina not too far from where they decided on filming. Coincidence? Or did Lynch do that purposely? He does seem to imply Lumberton is fictitious, claiming to love the name because "it paints a picture in your mind." Also notice that the apartments that Dorothy Vallens lived in were called Deep River Apartments.

It's possible Lynch came across the names of Deep River and Lumberton while looking at a map (for whatever reason), and they stuck in his head, and their usage in both "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Dr." is partially intentional because of what those names imply about their location (they do sound like smalltown USA names), and partially as a subconscious memory of something he came across.

That's just a theory though. I'm sure truth is stranger than fiction, and knowing Lynch he could easily be toying with the names and their usage in both movies.

Still...it's something to be proud of when you can say David Lynch quoted your hometown or filmed there, or used it as a plot point or whatever...that's something to behold. Kudos Johann.

[SteveSW9]

Blue box?
Blue key?
Lost Highway?
Shoot!
I cared for a woman who murdered then comitted suicide.
Isn't that the point?

[tabuno]

After a second look at this film, the one thing that struck me was how the final female character appeared to be a real composite character of the two women the audience gets to know during most of the movie. First there is fantasy, ideal dreaming that eventually leads to reality towards the end. Somehow in David Lynch's vision here at the end, reality seems more grimy, more mundane, not quite as fantastically beautiful and idealistic happy nor creepy dangerous as the movie first revealed to its audience.