By Request: Mulholland Drive

Gary's asked for my thoughts on Mulholland drive after suffering your typical Mid-Lynch mindmelt. I've not seen it for a while but below are my thoughts.

I also apologise to anyone who is waiting (as if!) for the second part of my INLAND EMPIRE musing - I simply haven't had a chance to watch it with others yet and I'm not sure if watching it again on my own will get me where I want to go for the blog I want to write.

It's an interesting thing, this movie. As a courtesy to the folks who have yet to see it and for others who may not want to read another raft of pretentious guesswork (or Movie Opinion if you prefer) I have spoilers (in so far as that applies to Lynch) and plot thoughts after the warning below.

Readers of my blog online, as opposed to those who recieve by email, must click on the link below before I ruin anything too much.



The world of David Lynch's movies is one of strangeness, stream-of-consciousness and dream logic.

What do I mean by those three things? Well, strangeness is fairly self explanatory and is utterly pervasive in his movies where characters, shots and events just do not sit well with our centuries old preconceptions - he is a very very odd man indeed, with what we will generously call a "singular" mind.

Secondly, he is working, in my opinion, on a stream of consciousness basis, this is particularly ture of INLAND EMPIRE, in that film, unlike the normal feel of making movies with a set script and each shot laid out very precisely and logically (while this may be his real process on the other films he has made) the films appear to follow their own internal logic often at the expense of common sense, or indeed any sense at all. What I mean is that whatever his process is, the end result feels like very little else, with the ideas flowing not fromthe real world, but from what just happened in the film. There is no way to watch INLAND EMPIRE without this understanding - that is, while the scene makes sense with regard to that one before it and the one after it, it does not necessarily have to fit with the one four scenes ago.

This links into the idea of "Dream Logic", which is very much as great a contradiction in terms as it appears. The whole state of the movie's world is in flux, and characters, events and even actors playing those characters can change dramatically over the course of the movie. In INLAND EMPIRE we lose sight of who is who and what is what for at least the middle third of the movie.

Coming onto Mulholland Drive itself, the sudden jolt and "right turn" the movie takes midway through is the result of the above and one more crucial factor. It was originally conceived as an open ended pilot for a TV series which was rejected ultimately after a bad pilot response (unsurprising, really).

The result is that long after a lot of the work was done, there was a whole resolution, including the romance between the two leads and the blue box opening, written and shot as new. Now, this may be the explanation for the break in tone and character, but bearing in mind the above we can see it's probably not that simple.

Once the blue box is opened events change and even characters' names and histories do.

Why? My response is "Hey, why not?" but I'm sure that's not going to be acceptable to most people. I favour the experience above the plot, but I'll go on.

Well, there's two major "real life" explanations, as opposed to "it's a movie" or "it's ALL a dream" explanations. The first is that the films first section, where the leads are working together on a movie and become involved, is the dream of the character of Diane (who dreams of being Betty) - this is lent credence by the character who literally says "wake up" around the change.

The second "real world" explanation is that we are shown two alternate realities, that we are shown, to use the memorable image, both legs of the trousers of time. You can either interpret the change as Betty shifting between worlds and being unable to accept her new position, or the two parts as totally separate stories. I don;t buy this though, since you'd have the same name in both realities probably, but whatever gets you to sleep.

As I say, I favour the dream-logic approach to the movie, as the moods and characters shift as the dream becomes a nightmare - it could also been seen as a critique of Hollywood, a contrast of the facade and the reality of that most false of American areas.

All in all, though, since Lynch isn't about to explain it for you, in my opinion because he did it just because that was the idea that came to him it may be pointless trying to decode it. In the extra's for INLAND EMPIRE, he repeatedly states it's about "the idea". And that seems to be it.

I really liked this movie, so I hope you've got something out of my thoughts. I will say if you found the device of change irritating, you will positively despise INLAND EMPIRE. I hope you will give it a try though.

Til Next Time!


A

As an aside, here is the DVD insert "advice" from Lynch. I think he's having a laugh at our expense with these, though. (copied from Wikipedia, that fountain of misinformation and supposition.

Contained within the original DVD release is a card titled "David Lynch's 10 Clues to Unlocking This Thriller". The clues are:

1. Pay particular attention in the beginning of the film: At least two clues are revealed before the credits.
2. Notice appearances of the red lampshade.
3. Can you hear the title of the film that Adam Kesher is auditioning actresses for? Is it mentioned again?
4. An accident is a terrible event — notice the location of the accident.
5. Who gives a key, and why?
6. Notice the robe, the ashtray, the coffee cup.
7. What is felt, realized, and gathered at the Club Silencio?
8. Did talent alone help Camilla?
9. Note the occurrences surrounding the man behind Winkie's.
10. Where is Aunt Ruth?