I suggest you read the review/explication by Allen B. Ruch. This seems to me to be the best interpretation I have come across (but admit I have only read a few). His explanation accounts for the various threads of the plot in a coherent fashion; also, he knows enough about Lynch (including some of his previous work), Hollywood history (films that MD may allude to) and some literary classics to truly make his interpretation interesting. His primary interpretive tool seems to be good ol’ Fruedian theory (major categories of interpretation include id, superego, ego–all of which are symbolized by various objects/events in the movie). His primary structural tool is basically the dual foci of a Fantasy narrative and a Reality narrative–the two of which impinge on each other in various ways throughout the plot. Of course not all loose ends are accounted for but given the highly metaphoric nature of the devices, the fantastical dream state of much of the plot and the overall symbolism being employed, loose ends necessarily obtain. I am in basic agreement with Ruch but would nuance my interpretation in a more Existential fashion–one which analyzes the motives more in terms of angst and guilt as opposed to Fruedian categories. BUT, all of that depends (if we try to approximate “authorial intent”) on deeper understanding of Lynch. If he is more a Fruedian than an Existenialist, then Ruch is on the right track. I am ignorant of Lynch myself.
As an intellectual, I often find that people who are lazy are fond of leveling the charge of “pretentious” against those who like to inquire deeper into matters; unless the roles are as vividly and narrowly defined as those found in a Disney movie, they are often dismissive. I think human being is more complex than those types of roles imply. We should look to Art to help us explore that complexity. I think that Art is revelatory when it comes to trying to come to grasps with who/what humanity is.
" Mullholand Drive reminds me of the seemingly hundreds of experimental films, both professional (what ever the fuck that means) and amateur I’ve seen here at school. " Way to go, College Boy!!! By the way, Doogie, just because you didn’t like something, doesn’t mean you should insult the people who did. How would you like it if I called you a “dumbass” for not liking it? Grow up!
Although I do believe it’s true, I didn’t call anyone who likes this movie a dumbass. It was Zev who said people who don’t like the movie are lazy or plain stupid.
Never saw Lost Highway, but I did see The Swimmer with Burt Lancaster, it’s about some guy who runs from backyard to backyard swimming in peoples pools, ya what???. BTW, doogie is right in his last post
I don’t think Doogie said that others are a dumbass… however many have said the same about him, only in a nicer way. “You only don’t like it because you don’t understand. You’re not smart enough to get it.”
To those that liked the movie but didn’t really understand it, basically what you’re saying is that you liked the moving pictures.
Wow. What a geek! Do you talk like that in real life too or are you just trying to sound impressive?
If you are such an “intellectual”, learn to use paragraphs. It’s < p >. Your post was just plain annoying to read with all that pompous literature and no paragraphs.
A self-proclaimed intellectual! LMAO!!!
Mulholland Dr is crap and anyone who says that is has meaning (implied or otherwise) is full of shit. That’s not an opinion (mine or others). It’s a fact. Why? Because it wasn’t even intended to be a movie! It’s an uncompleted TV pilot strung together with additional footage.
Oh, and I have a Disney movie for you. It’s called The Emperor’s New Clothes. If you are such an “intellectual”, maybe you can grasp the concept
While we’re on the subject of quirky, fucked up movies with nary a plot (I kinda like most of them incidentally), what’s everyone’s take on “Memento”? If I’d watched it on VHS instead of DVD I don’t think I’d have gotten so pissed at it. I honestly thought the damn DVD player was fucking up and skipping chapters.
I loved “Memento”. Of course, that’s probably because I’m a short bus riding windowlicker who has to wear a football helmet to keep me from hurting myself. It had a plot, told a story, didn’t have a Cowboy appear for no reason, wrapped everything up nice and neat at the end (beginning). Everything we simpletons need.
Now that’s interesting! As clearly as you saw the nice, neat but somewhat scattered package that was “Memento”; I saw “Mulholland Drive”. I had the damndest time figuring out “Memento” but MD came easy.
In my mind, they both fall under the “Pulp Fiction” style of movie making (not that I am by any means a cinemaphile or whatever you call those people). Since “Pulp Fiction” came out, there’s been a steady stream of this style of flick. But why is one easy to grasp and another is not? Does it have to do with identifying with a character or not? I could understand a man’s impatience in watching a hard-to-follow movie about chicks. While a hard-to-follow movie about a male character that gets to fuck people up wouldn’t provoke the same reaction. Whatcha think?
I don’t think anyone can “get” Mullholland Drive. It was a dream, afterall. If you can explain what the hell the Cowboy in Mullholland Drive was all about, I’ll believe you “got it”. As far as “Memento” goes, if you were to watch it one scene at a time from end to beginning, all the pieces are at least there for you to put together. It’s just a matter of behing able to do it backwards in you head. It is Pulp Fiction-ish.
You can slap a Freudian interpretation onto any piece of film, art or literature. Representation of the unconscious is standard in today’s art, and consequently Freudian interpretations don’t mean much. MD is obviously a psychological film, so interpretations of it will have to go beyond simply “the unconscious”, because that is what is being blatantly represented. Oh, and you write like a freshman philosophy student.
BS, yep, part geek–if that means being articulate and intelligent, and enjoy discussing intellectual matters. But to your way of thinking, I’m probably a “nature freak” or “red neck” when I’m deep in the mountains bear hunting or skinning a trophy buck in the north woods. Yeah, you’d probably call me a “weekend biker” once I’m done building my chopper. No doubt you would reserve the term “egg head” for me since I hold a Masters degree in Philosophy and Theology and took 2nd in a State Chess championship. Probably call me “Yuppie” or something since I am a manager in Corporate America. Once I post a pix on T-mag, you’ll probably employ the moniker “muscle-head” or the like. Since I live in Southern California and enjoy discussing politics, art, literature and philosophy in local cafe’s with my friends who are lawyers or hold Ph Ds in various fields of the humanities, well, I’m sure that’s just further proof that I’m “pretentious.” But that’s ok, I’m used to it. When you excel in life, there are always haters out there who are jealous of your accomplishments and resort to childish name calling tactics to shelter their fragile failing egos. By the way, since I’m so pretentious, I won’t be reading anything else you have to say so rave away. I learned long ago to ignore people like you.
SPDM, your absolutely right about the potential for dressing virtually anything up in Freudian garb and since a Freudian interpretation can be made of anything, it means next to nothing. The Freudian spin was not mine so your criticism misses me and applies to Ruch. I stated I was in basic agreement with Ruch and meant that with respect to the movie having basically a reality based thread and a fantasy thread & that the former irrupts into the latter. In point of fact, I distanced myself from his interpretation by suggesting I had my own existential interpretation. But to respond directly to your point (that ends up being) about Ruch–if Lynch is a Freudian and was consciously using Freudian theory, then the question (in the context of my post) becomes not one of the value of using Freudian theory as a medium of artistic expression or communication but of simple exegesis (and this was why I nodded my head to the whole concept of authorial intent). To fail to make this distinction is to confuse the task of interpretation proper (exegesis) with personal value judgements about the authors use of a given (in this case theoretical) medium of expression. As an example: I may not agree with or value Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” but this has nothing to do with drawing his intended meaning out of the text; if anything, my subjective dislike of his views probably only makes the job of interpreting more difficult. To your statement which included a reference to “freshman philosophy student”–thank you for the compliment; like all good writers, I kept my intended audience in view and that audience is not, primarily, an academic audience (and please don’t go on and on about good writers using paragraphs and the like–this is merely a web forum). If you would like to read some more critical-academic work that I have done (some of which has been accepted for publishing in academic journals), I could send you some.
How many times must I teach you to use paragraphs???
If you are such an “intellectual”, how many times does it take to learn something so simple? I even spelt it out for you. Do you also not use paragraphs when you write your “Masters” papers? Just because this is “merely” a web form it doesn’t mean it’s any easier to read. Why do you bother spelling right or even capitalizing then?
Yada, yada, yada… As for me, I’m a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, I graduated from Harvard with PHDs in Business, Philosophy, History, Nutrition and Exercise Science. I’m 6’2 240 lbs 3% BF and I bench 600lbs. On my free time, I build my own jet and fly around the world having coffee with my friends who are fellow CEOs and politicians around the world, etc. etc.
You won’t be reading anything else I have to say? How old are you 12?
What kind of intellectual wimpers away from an argument looking like an indignant child?
You think you are better than others just because you have a fancy degree and money?
Articulate and intelligent. LOL. You are really full of yourself aren’t you? Bragging about this and that. Perhaps you are trying to make up for inadequacies in some other department?
I’m glad to see you put in your place. You need a lesson in humility. I hate pompous people like you who think they are better than others because you THINK you are more intellegent and have a better job.
Now go running back to your lawyer friends with your tail between your legs and tell them how you got whipped by “regular folk”.
Good point Coyote
Who says movies must make sense?
What makes sense to you/us and why?
Most people on this board are used to Hollywood
sensibilities (or lack of) 99% LA studio films follow a basic formula and anything that veers away from it seems strange to anyone not used to anything else. If you lived in Europe or Asia for example and you were exposed to films/art from around the world you would have different experiences and sensibilities. Then some things may not seem so strange and you might be able to make some sense out of it. There is also a big difference between cinema as art and cinema as entertainment. Art “entertains” on a different level, you need to look for things and not accept everything at face value
