Mulholland Drive (2001)

[Flick James]

THIS INITIAL POST CONTAINS NO SPOILERS, BUT SUBSEQUENT POSTS MAY.  SO, IF YOU INTEND TO WATCH THIS FILM PROPERLY, YOU MAY WANT TO AVOID READING BEYOND THIS POST UNTIL AFTER YOU’VE WATCHED IT.

You know, I am a bit of a David Lynch fan, and being a Lynch fan means that you accept him for better or worse.  Any DL fan knows what I mean.  The man operates from a place in his brain that makes him difficult for most to appreciate.  And yes, he does not always succeed. 

As much as I consider myself a DL fan, I can’t believe I just now got around to sitting down and watching Mulholland Drive in its entirety.  I guess I just had been disenchanted by Lost Highway, which I didn’t much care for, and thought maybe DL had lost his magic.  I was quite mistaken.  Mulholland Drive may be his best film, in my humble opinion. 

This film was nearly perfect, at once a respectful tribute to old Hollywood and a parody of its archetypes.  MD has all the elements of a DL film: disjointed and seemingly out-of-place scenes, swirling subconscious imagery, symbolism and clues, some of which are not so mysterious once they are revealed.  My wife and I really enjoyed trying to catch clues as they came, and discussing the film afterwards and fitting all the disjointed scenes and clues we couldn’t figure out before into the context of the whole, and the meaning of the film came flooding to us.  I’ve talked to people who have seen MD and said they couldn’t figure it out, but it really wasn’t that hard, but it does take a little thought and for the mind to be in the right place when watching.  I think they must have been missing scenes.  I read somewhere that DL operates from his subconscious.  This is particularly true of MD.  Such an approach is hit-or-miss for any filmmaker, and DL does not always hit.  With this film, however, DL was clearly working at a peak level and made everything work perfectly.

I highly recommend watching this film from start to finish.  As promised, I will provide no spoilers.  However, for those who have not seen MD, I will give the same hint that Lynch gave publicly.  Watch the sequence before the opening credits closely.  There is a clue that will show up later in the film.  This turns out to be very true, and on multiple levels.

[Doggett]

I love this film but I think the clues things is bogus.
Just enjoy it, it's pretty easy to follow...except for the last half hour. You gotta love that Lynch weirdness !

[Flick James]

SPOILER ALERT!

That's cool, but I disagree about the clues.  The film is packed with them. 

The panning shot at the end of the opening "jitterbug" sequence has two clues at least.  The red sheets are from Diane Selwyn's/Betty's bed, which tells us that she is in the middle of a dream.  I you look closely, there is a partial glimpse in that panning shot of a cowboy boot, a suggestion of the mysterious cowboy character who says "Time to wake up" just before the dream ends and Diane's real life part of the film begins.

The red sheets are also in the "Betty" dream, when they find the dead woman in the apartment, who also happens to have the name Diane Selwyn, and she is lying in the same position on red sheets as the real Diane, a very portentous scene that Diane Selwyn will be dead soon. 

The scene with the dark-haired man and the detective at Winkies is part of the dream, and is the real Diane's subconscious telling her that someone witnessed her conversation with the hitman at the diner.  The meeting with the hitman was actually out of sequence, and happened before the dream.  The dark-haired man said he saw the detective standing by the register.  Diane, during the meeting with the hitman, looked at the same spot and saw the dark-haired man by the register.  The man witnessed the meeting with the hitman. 

During the meeting with the hitman, the real Diane sees the name Betty on the nametag of the waitress at Winkies, which plants in her mind and she assumes the name in her dream, while in the dream the waitress is named Diane, which is the characters subconscious again telling her that she has swapped identities with the waitress.

The whole dream is Diane Selwyn's subconscious playing out her guilt, her paranoia about loose ends, and her obsession with Camilla Rhodes and wanting to be able to control her.

So, the clues are all over the place.  Now, if you just naturally followed the meaning of the film and didn't need the clues, well, then you are far more advance than I who needed the clues.  But they are definately there.

[Doggett]

The thing is, you don't really 'know' any of that stuff for sure.
It's all just an interpretation.


I just followed the themes of the characters, so when things got switched it was that what I paid attention too and not which character was who anymore.

I'll give ya karma though because I like your ideas.
 

[Flick James]

Oh, I understand what you're saying.  True, interpretation is a big part of it.  DL is known for not discussing the meaning of his films, and likes it that people take their own meaning and has been quoted as saying that he loves to hear all the different theories.  However, both my wife and I took almost the same meaning from all the different images and, believe me, we often take different stances on a variety of topics, including films.  I'm pretty sure that I took the correct meaning from those different scenes, or at least got in the ballpark.  DL uses symbolism and subconscious imagery, it's what he's known for, and yes wierdness.  A big part of the wierdness is that it is very based in the subconscious, so there is going to be alternate interpretations, which is a beautiful thing.  I thought the meaning of certains images and themes were very symbolic and intentional, but certainly blurred by the subconscious dream-state from which DL operates.  I like your thought too, though, so here's som karme your way too.

[Rev. Powell]

Oh, I understand what you're saying.  True, interpretation is a big part of it.  DL is known for not discussing the meaning of his films, and likes it that people take their own meaning and has been quoted as saying that he loves to hear all the different theories.  However, both my wife and I took almost the same meaning from all the different images and, believe me, we often take different stances on a variety of topics, including films.  I'm pretty sure that I took the correct meaning from those different scenes, or at least got in the ballpark. DL uses symbolism and subconscious imagery, it's what he's known for, and yes wierdness.  A big part of the wierdness is that it is very based in the subconscious, so there is going to be alternate interpretations, which is a beautiful thing.  I thought the meaning of certains images and themes were very symbolic and intentional, but certainly blurred by the subconscious dream-state from which DL operates.  I like your thought too, though, so here's som karme your way too.

I like the way you think.  Many (most?) people don't understand how to watch a surrealist film, and sometimes even assume either that they're dumb, or that the director's pretentious, because they can't figure out what the movie's "about."  But it seems to me you almost contradict yourself when you say, "I'm pretty sure that I took the correct meaning..." and follow it with  "there is going to be alternate interpretations, which is a beautiful thing." 

But that apparent contradiction points out a tension in these films that makes them interesting to me: if the director's purpose in making the films is to channel his subconscious, is he really the author of the film, or is his subconscious?  Might he put things into the film that even he doesn't fully understand?  People always assume the writer/director is the ultimate authority on his work, but this may not actually be the case; the viewer's interpretation is in a way equally valid with the director's, and the director intended it that way.  (That being said, I constantly read completely asinine interpretations of surrealist films---but they almost always start with the premise that the director constructed the film rationally and intended every symbol to have a single, firm, unambiguous meaning).   

Don't spoil MULHOLLAND for me, I haven't seen it yet.   

[Flick James]

See it.  It put me in a really good mood because I've been disappointed by alot of films lately, and this one is a gem.  Once in a while a film I see will make me gush when it stands out in the midst of others I have seen in the same time frame.  Down By Law did that for me in the 80's along with Blue Velvet.

I admit there was some contradiction in this thread.  I think I was trying to say that I think DL wants people to have their own interpretation to some extent, but that the film was not as mysterious as some think it is.  DL himself says there is a coherent story there, you just need to pay attention. There are still things in the film that I haven't quite place yet, however.  Enjoy.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Any problems with the film might be because it did not start out as a theatrical film. It was meant to be the introduction to a weekly TV series, but when the series was not picked up, Lynch took what he had and turned it into a theatrical film.

[Caronte]

SPOILER

Amazing (and not only for the lesb scenes), it has beginning, development and ending, but NOT IN THIS ORDER. I read one theory that says that the film begins in the scene where Naomi's character is pleasuring herself and the rest of the film is a dream of her...

Anyway, it has one of my favourite film ending.

[Crystal Pepsi Lite]

Anyone seen Inland Empire?  I just finished my second viewing and - I still am not sure what's "going on" but there's just something about that movie that brings me back again.  I think that's a DL fan - one that says "I don't know what I just saw but DAMN it was good."

[Torgo]

I've always found it amazing that David Lynch was able to take what was a failed TV pilot for ABC, film additional footage and turn it into one of the most clever, hypnotic, at times nightmarish and great movies that I've seen.  I  really think it ranks as one of David Lynch's best.  I believe the part where the pilot was to end and the actual series to pick up was when a couple of main characters sort of disappear into a blue box.  The remaining part of the film after that comprises the bulk of the added footage though there was additional footage sprinkled throughout to ramp up nudity, language and violence and expand some themes better. Naomi Watts gives an Oscar worthy performance IMO. In fact the entire cast is fantastic!

[Flick James]

I like your post, Torgo.  The issue with the blue box.  You may be onto something there.