Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> K, I will assume that you've seen Mulholland
> Drive.
>
> The narrative structure of the film, including
> initial framing, multiple POVs from unreliable
> sources anda bit of traditional objective
> omniscient, creates the kind of mental exercise
> that I really enjoy.
>
> At the end, after viewing a few times and *really*
> watching, you can see the story emerge. It is that
> directed artistic ambiguity that is so rarely
> found, and so rewarding when you do happen upon
> it.

I saw it just now. Have not seen it in full before, but remember the scene where they find the dead girl, which disturbed me greatly. It literally made me jump back in terror. I must have turned off the film at that point, but it was long ago and I don't quite remember the situation. I had seen Blue Velvet in the 1980s, and so I knew David Lynch was capable of realistic horror that don't suit my sensitivities at all. So I guess I didn't want to expose myself to that again. I prefer horror to be modulated through fantasy.

A very sad film from many aspects, and a highly unpleasant ugly setting. I was very concentrated and took the challenge of trying to grasp the whole film; but after the "magic" blue box suddenly appeared in her purse, it was too difficult to untangle directly. A ghost-story film? Or symbolic surrealism, perhaps not intended to make full sense in every detail, but retain some mystery? The movie is like an ordered deck of cards, that suddenly gets shuffled. And that is quite sensible, since life really isn't linear, at least not inside our minds; different times get mixed up, and replay over each other.

I guess the basic message is that Hollywood is grandiose rubbish, full of ruthless evil people, and that innocent naïve individuals with dreams and expectations, will get misled, confused, and hurt there.

I liked best the early scene in which the director meets the man with the big cowboy hat up on the hill. The man's authority was truly weird. It gave shivers along my spine.

Quote:

K:
I liked best the early scene in which the director meets the man with the big cowboy hat up on the hill. The man's authority was truly weird. It gave shivers along my spine.

Me, too! Me, too!

He really had no respect for a smart alec, huh?

"If you do well, you'll see me one more time. If you don't do well, you'll see me two more times....".

All vague menace.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Multiple points of view...
>
> I expect to give this novel
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> ingerpost#:~:text=An%20Instance%20of%20the%20Finge
> rpost%20is%20a%201997,of%20the%20characters%2C%20a
> ll%20of%20them%20unreliable%20narrators.
>
> Instance of the Fingerpost a try before long.
> Isn't than an intriguing title? The book will be
> an interlibrary loan copy and so protected from
> being thrown at the wall if the author should be
> guilty of anachronisms. I hope good things. I've
> been delving into 17th-century history and
> literature for several years now (in my opinion a
> much more interesting century than Lovecraft's
> beloved 18th century).
>
> --Oh, I see I wasn't posting on the Super Thread,
> where a tangent such as this might better belong;

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,..."

:^)

> but the remark about multiple points of view made
> me think of this book, which I hope will turn up
> this week.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > K, I will assume that you've seen Mulholland
> > Drive.
> >
> > The narrative structure of the film, including
> > initial framing, multiple POVs from unreliable
> > sources anda bit of traditional objective
> > omniscient, creates the kind of mental exercise
> > that I really enjoy.
> >
> > At the end, after viewing a few times and
> *really*
> > watching, you can see the story emerge. It is
> that
> > directed artistic ambiguity that is so rarely
> > found, and so rewarding when you do happen upon
> > it.
>
> I saw it just now. Have not seen it in full
> before, but remember the scene where they find the
> dead girl, which disturbed me greatly. It
> literally made me jump back in terror. I must have
> turned off the film at that point, but it was long
> ago and I don't quite remember the situation. I
> had seen Blue Velvet in the 1980s, and so I knew
> David Lynch was capable of realistic horror that
> don't suit my sensitivities at all. So I guess I
> didn't want to expose myself to that again. I
> prefer horror to be modulated through fantasy.
>
> A very sad film from many aspects, and a highly
> unpleasant ugly setting. I was very concentrated
> and took the challenge of trying to grasp the
> whole film; but after the "magic" blue box
> suddenly appeared in her purse, it was too
> difficult to untangle directly. A ghost-story
> film? Or symbolic surrealism, perhaps not intended
> to make full sense in every detail, but retain
> some mystery? The movie is like an ordered deck of
> cards, that suddenly gets shuffled. And that is
> quite sensible, since life really isn't linear, at
> least not inside our minds; different times get
> mixed up, and replay over each other.

I had to read some interpretive sites and test out some of their hypotheses. The one that worked for me, as a key, is that at the very beginning of the film is a gunshot. Then the narrative that we see begins.

At the end of the narrative, which bifurcates in its telling into two radically different stories of the same sequence of events--mutually exclusive, really--there is a suicide by gunshot.

This is the same gunshot that the movie began with.

Now be forewarned: I'm working from memory, and it was never all that good, and especially now that it has some years on it, but the key to understanding the narrative is to understand how the very beginning and the very end fit together, and what is therefore implied.

And the two diverging tellings of the same story--Roshomon-like--are the idealized story versus the realistic story. The tension between the idealized and the realistic caused the suicide. Realizing this can generate a load of pathos in the viewer afterward.

K., I'm not suggesting that you re-watch it because it's not in your wheelhouse, as you've made clear--and the film is, after all, for your personal enjoyment. But the assembly of the narrative is very nifty if you like deconstructing complete systems to see how they work as they do.

So there's the visceral, emotional enjoyment, and the intellectual, mechanistic enjoyment.

There is a *lot* of stuff written about MD--lots of it is the typical jerk-off pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo that you'd expect from fanboys (whew! pretty direct, huh? :^) ) but there's enough to begin to see a structure that one might never get, even from multiple viewings. You (and me) would be distracted by things like The Cowboy...

This would then mean to me that the film is one for students and not necessarily for casual viewers--although Lynch, always attuned to how to give the audience something they want that is very easy to digest and provides immediate gratification, so as to get the audience to stick around long enough to view the next complex sequence, gives us lesbian sex between two very attractive females.

...just like he had Patricia Arquette nude in Lost Highway just as much as he reasonably could...Isabella Rosellini in Blue Velvet.

But his central payload is certainly extremely artistic and largely works at a level beneath the conscious--he flirts with the viewers' id a great deal.

To me he is a great master of cinematic artistry. His creative impetus is unabashedly intuitive and he has a great deal of confidence in it. He created clunkers, for sure (Wild at Heart, Lost Highway), but they are *very special* clunkers.

I mean, the general consensus is that Dune is a clunker, but I respectfully disagree, as I know you do.

>
> I guess the basic message is that Hollywood is
> grandiose rubbish, full of ruthless evil people,
> and that innocent naïve individuals with dreams
> and expectations, will get misled, confused, and
> hurt there.

Maybe, but I don't see him as moralistic AT ALL. He is in a sense a cheerful amoral cynic. He is giving us very artistic freak shows. This is not a simple, crudely constructed paper mache "Jake, the Alligator Man", but instead he exhibits a multiracial live sex act between two sets of Siamese twins, where tie twins, themselves are composed of one of each sex/gender.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

But seriously, Lynch is not about teaching moral lessons, in my opinion. Not at all.

>
> I liked best the early scene in which the director
> meets the man with the big cowboy hat up on the
> hill. The man's authority was truly weird. It gave
> shivers along my spine.

I think that in a Lynch film not all of the scenes are necessarily there to advance the plot (the one at the corral above Hollywood is--and dig this! a corral within shouting distance of the Viper Room, in contemporary LA--what an image!) but he uses some weird scenes simply to manipulate the viewers' mood to set up what comes next. A great example is the girl with grotesque, lumpy cheeks singing sincerely in Eraserhead.

WTF?

You know what would be a very Lynchian true story for him to film, like Elephant Man? The Tate murders by the Manson family. In 2019 I stumbled over the up-and-coming Tarantino film, which capitalized on the 50th anniversary, and read a couple of forums dedicated to it for about two months (85% obsessed weirdos, in my opinion--all of whom are likely still posting today, just as they had been for the previous 10 years), and gradually absorbed what it was all about, how/where it unfolded, and it was pure Lynch, in my opinion.

I realize that this is divergent and am willing to continue on the big catch-all superthread.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think not I have the energy, or ability, to go into a deeper artistic discussion about Mulholland Drive. But I think I may very well re-watch it on a later occasion, after it has sunk in more. I think I remember the sequences pretty well, but I can't for all of me remember there was a gunshot at the beginning!

Quote:

Sawfish wrote:
--Roshomon-like--are the idealized story versus the realistic story. The tension between the idealized and the realistic caused the suicide. Realizing this can generate a load of pathos in the viewer afterward.

Much so. Thinking about it specifically, I feel the pathos very strongly. At the start of the film, I didn't think I would muster up much empathy for that cheerful young actress arriving in Hollywood, but the failings of her alter ego played out in her parallel identity is so devastatingly dark and depressing.

Quote:

Sawfish wrote:
Lynch, always attuned to how to give the audience something they want that is very easy to digest and provides immediate gratification, so as to get the audience to stick around long enough to view the next complex sequence, gives us lesbian sex between two very attractive females.

I did not see it that way at all. I found those lesbian scenes annoying, and sadly disturbing. Yet another example of the unpleasant downhill Hollywood lifestyle (either Lynch fell for that lure, or he deliberately used it to heighten the focus on decadence; I believe the latter. It may also have been orders from the producers, which I think Lynch has been subjected to like most other directors in Hollywood). I feel that the naive young actress was seduced into that by the much more experienced local actress who was used to the decadent nihilist polygamy lifestyle of Hollywood. Not a very good way to start off her budding film career; and the realistic story version shows the fatal consequences.

Quote:

Sawfish wrote:
Maybe, but I don't see him as moralistic AT ALL. He is in a sense a cheerful amoral cynic.

That might not be you? :)
I agree that Lynch is probably not a Moralist. But still, he undoubtedly sees the darkness in Hollywood, and portrays it.

Knygatin Wrote:
> (Solomon
> Kane has more variation. "Skulls in the Stars"
> with its partly Lovecraftian imagery, and "Wings
> in the Night" with its great monsters, are two
> favorites.)

I think I enjoyed Solomon Kane more than Conan. REH seemed to like the character as well, judging by the fact that he wrote three Solomon Kane poems. "Wings of the Night" was deliriously brutal.

Hespire Wrote:
> I should re-read Howard's Solomon Kane stories and
> see how they hold up. The idea of a puritan
> traveling the world to eradicate sin, only to
> doubt the existence of his God as he encounters
> increasingly vile and strange things, has
> potential.

Not much of doubting the existence of God. Nor for Solomon, anyhow. I'm a less sure about R.E.H., but whatever his religious beliefs or lack thereof, I don't think the "problem of Evil" was a concern for him.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't think I would muster up much
> empathy for that cheerful young actress arriving
> in Hollywood, but the failings of her alter ego
> played out in her parallel identity is so
> devastatingly dark and depressing.

I suspect it’s the other way round: the ‘alter ego’ is the real girl. The cheerful, successful actress is her fantasy version of herself.

> I feel that the naive
> young actress was seduced into [lesbian sex]
> by the much more experienced local actress
> who was used to the
> decadent nihilist polygamy lifestyle of Hollywood.

The lesbian sex with beautiful Betty that we get to see is the girl’s fantasy. In reality she had a very plain-looking girlfriend, the one who comes by to collect some stuff after their implied break-up.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > I feel that the naive
> > young actress was seduced into
> > by the much more experienced local actress
> > who was used to the
> > decadent nihilist polygamy lifestyle of
> Hollywood.
>
> The lesbian sex with beautiful Betty that we get
> to see is the girl’s fantasy. In reality she had
> a very plain-looking girlfriend, the one who comes
> by to collect some stuff after their implied
> break-up.

Excellent observation! I didn't think about that, still thought they only had switched apartments.

Avoosl Wuthoqquan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I didn't think I would muster up much
> > empathy for that cheerful young actress
> arriving
> > in Hollywood, but the failings of her alter ego
> > played out in her parallel identity is so
> > devastatingly dark and depressing.
>
> I suspect it’s the other way round: the ‘alter
> ego’ is the real girl. The cheerful, successful
> actress is her fantasy version of herself.
>
> > I feel that the naive
> > young actress was seduced into
> > by the much more experienced local actress
> > who was used to the
> > decadent nihilist polygamy lifestyle of
> Hollywood.
>
> The lesbian sex with beautiful Betty that we get
> to see is the girl’s fantasy. In reality she had
> a very plain-looking girlfriend, the one who comes
> by to collect some stuff after their implied
> break-up.


FWIW, that's essentially how I saw the narrative, as well.

A desperate rationalization of her failure to make it big in Hollywood, ending in suicide.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...MUCH CUT

Quote:

Sawfish:
Maybe, but I don't see him as moralistic AT ALL.
He is in a sense a cheerful amoral cynic.

>
> That might not be you? :)

I'll cop to "cheerful, amoral *realist*"... ;^)

I'd be a cynic if I actually expected anything other than what I'm seeing. Was the kid who said, aloud, "Mommy, why is the emperor naked?" a cynic?

That's all I'm ever really doing, Knygatin.

> I agree that Lynch is probably not a Moralist. But
> still, he undoubtedly sees the darkness in
> Hollywood, and portrays it.

Who *doesn't* see it? It's one of the oldest popular cliches of the 20th-21st C. It was old when Nathaniel West wrote about it in the 1920s.

The attraction is not to have this re-affirmed, but to voyeuristictly peek at *how* this affects a selected individual in the narrative.

E.g., does it...AHEM!...drive them to lesbian sex with another attractive character?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think not I have the energy, or ability, to go
> into a deeper artistic discussion about Mulholland
> Drive. But I think I may very well re-watch it on
> a later occasion, after it has sunk in more. I
> think I remember the sequences pretty well, but I
> can't for all of me remember there was a gunshot
> at the beginning!
>
>
> --Roshomon-like--are the idealized story versus
> the realistic story. The tension between the
> idealized and the realistic caused the suicide.
> Realizing this can generate a load of pathos in
> the viewer afterward.
>
> Much so. Thinking about it specifically, I feel
> the pathos very strongly. At the start of the
> film, I didn't think I would muster up much
> empathy for that cheerful young actress arriving
> in Hollywood, but the failings of her alter ego
> played out in her parallel identity is so
> devastatingly dark and depressing.
>

Quote:

Sawfish:
Lynch, always attuned to how to give the audience
something they want that is very easy to digest
and provides immediate gratification, so as to get
the audience to stick around long enough to view
the next complex sequence, gives us lesbian sex
between two very attractive females.

>
> I did not see it that way at all.

Well, I think that we're not talking about mutually exclusive attributes, here. It's possible to feature a lesbian sex scene with two attractive actresses--which is guaranteed to generate a certain sort of interest--AND for the fact of this encounter to generate pathos, on consideration of what it means in the narrative.

All this means is that it's arguably not entirely gratuitous, included solely to titillate the audience.

> I found those
> lesbian scenes annoying, and sadly disturbing. Yet
> another example of the unpleasant downhill
> Hollywood lifestyle (either Lynch fell for that
> lure, or he deliberately used it to heighten the
> focus on decadence; I believe the latter. It may
> also have been orders from the producers, which I
> think Lynch has been subjected to like most other
> directors in Hollywood).

And it's not for nothing that I listed at least two other instances of Lynch employing this device (nudity, and/or the sex act) in other films, and by god, having Patricia Arquette perform fellatio on a Mafioso, at gunpoint, topless, sure seemed gratuitous to me. I couldn't see where it advanced the plot, or character development, at all.

But yep, I watched it all right. All 6 times that I watched the film... ;^)

So yeah, I'll stick with the idea that Lynch cheerfully uses sex as a component of his films, often, and for no other reason than he knows that people respond to it, if indeed they are capable of any response, at all.

Now, *that's* cynical...

I mean, Kubrick also did this, at least twice. Opening of Clockwork Orange, and the ritual and subsequent extended orgy in Eyes Wide Shut.

Look what's there, right in front of your eyes. Are not the emperor's new clothes truly fine? ;^)

> I feel that the naive
> young actress was seduced into that by the much
> more experienced local actress who was used to the
> decadent nihilist polygamy lifestyle of Hollywood.
> Not a very good way to start off her budding film
> career; and the realistic story version shows the
> fatal consequences.
>
> Maybe, but I don't see him as moralistic AT ALL.
> He is in a sense a cheerful amoral cynic.
>
> That might not be you? :)
> I agree that Lynch is probably not a Moralist. But
> still, he undoubtedly sees the darkness in
> Hollywood, and portrays it.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think Sawfish and Avoosl observed this better than I was able, in that the successful actress is a pure fantasy of the real girl. That may be Lynch's overall intention.

But there exist after all successful actresses in Hollywood, that correspond to the cheerful girl in the first half of the movie. To only see her as a fantasy, is a materialistic and purely psychological interpretation of the movie. It is one interpretation, and a perfectly sensible one. But the movie could also be interpreted in a more mystical way, taking place in spiritual dimensions, with parallel soul manifestations coexisting in multiple dimensions.

Anyhow, the mystical multiple dimension interpretation is how I prefer to connect to the movie. At least at this stage. I am allergic to the materialistic and worldly in all of its forms.

Poe asked if all life is but a dream: A Dream Within a Dream

Olaf Stapledon speculated in Star Maker whether our lives and daily activities within our houses, is but a dream and an illusion.