Mulholland Drive

This was my first David Lynch film and it left me completely stunned and amazed. You will have to come up with your own interpretation of the movie and that changed my view on movies and art as a whole. Recommended for everyone who wishes to see something truly unique and interesting.

The late great David Lynch's Mulholland Drive starts with a car crash on- wait for it- Mulholland Drive. With picturesque views of LA at night, the sole survivor Rita (Laura Harring) trundles down the valley into the city. Police soon learn that a witness might have fled from the crash and a search begins. It's not the search that's important, per se, but more the fact that it's happening at all. It's a plot device to set mood; the mood itself is the goal.

Next, Naomi Watts' character Betty arrives at LA International Airport on the arm of an older couple whom she'd met on the flight. She mutters no words beyond, "Oh, I can't believe it" as she's welcomed by the "Welcome to Los Angeles!" banner at the foot of the escalator. We don't know much about where she's headed or why- but we totally do: starlet lands in Hollywood in search of fame and fortune. Lynch appreciates how there's scarce need for dialogue. This story's been told enough times that we can fill in the holes ourselves. He lets the movie breathe.

Rita and Betty eventually cross paths and the narrative takes shape from there, alongside a passel of other characters and storylines. Everyone's either being chased/watched, feels like they are, or is just generally discomfited by their predicament. There's an active force in the background that we can't see despite our eyes being glued to the screen. It takes some time before we make sense of the many abstractions. True to form, Lynch moves artfully between what's real, what's vivid dream, and what's pure fantasy- it's Hollywood, remember- but we remain confident in the story based on clues provided by a director who's long earned our trust as moviegoers.

Opulent orchestral music (City of Prague Philharmonic) animates the monster of the city. The gently pulsating score gives texture to the mood, depth to the drama, and ultimately heart to the film. Periodic shots of the Hollywood sign serve as a visual reminder of where we are. Bird's eye views of the heliports downtown reinforce the same. Only later do we realize the story has not much to do with LA- yet it does. It's a movie about making movies, after all. If Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood was a love letter to Los Angeles in general, Lynch's Mulholland Drive is a hostile rebuke of Hollywood in particular (which might be a good way to approach this ambitious film if you're seeing it for the first time).

On balance, Mulholland Drive means different things to different people- maybe even different things to the same people! We come to Hollywood to realize our dreams, and its winding road leads some to success and others over the edge. It may lead to a crash from which we can escape- literally or figuratively- but our ultimate fate is decided by strangers, some of whom lie in our own heads. We may start by looking outwardly for answers but by the end we're transfixed on what's happening within. So while Mulholland Drive does exist on a map, it's the Mulholland Drive in our minds that may dictate actual outcomes. As one character declares to another halfway through the film, "Man's attitude will determine to a large extent how his life will be."

Well if that's true, Lynch must have had a wonderful attitude because he led an exemplary life, and this film was surely among the peaks of his career. Essential viewing.

---

"In work and in life, we're all supposed to get along. We're supposed to have fun, like puppy dogs with our tails wagging. It's supposed to be great living; it's supposed to be fantastic." - David Lynch.

Getting through David Lynch's catalogue and not all of his films have done it for me (or even been watchable for me). Mulholland Drive, though, was a mesmerising experience, which I thoroughly enjoyed. The fantastic third act revelations make rewatching it urgent!

Lynch loves to realistically portray logical sequences interspersed by fantasy diversions, which entrances but confuses the viewer. Blue Velvet is his best film, and works well because of its overall logical coherency spiced up by fantastic deviations from the norm (the fantasy element of the film). This technique reminds me of Fellini's 8 1/2, where fantasy was often interspersed with a logical and coherent plot.

Mulholland Drive starts off logically but then gradually abandons logical coherence as dream-like (but realistically presented) sequences are brought into the plot. Then there is a shift in the plot, from the fantasy of the first part, to the reality of the second part where roles and identities are reversed and reality reigns.

Lynch's genius is in his artistic slight of hand where he presents a fantasy scene realistically, sucking the viewer in to expecting a meaningful depiction, then upending these expectations in shocking the viewer with the fantastic elements of the scene. I can imagine Lynch laughing in the background as he plays his joke on the viewer.

The film Holy Motors presents pure fantasy in nonsensical and unrelated sequences, and is bad art. Mulholland Drive has enough organization and structure, with more skillfully accomplished fantasy, to qualify it as good art.

Naomi Watts gives us an outstanding performance - better than the typical "Best Actress" Oscar award winner's performance in the last 20 years. Watts usually gets roles that don't allow her to display her considerable acting skills, but this role does, and she more than meets the challenge.

The plot is secondary for Lynch since cinematic art is his focus. However, the movie is totally baffling unless you have some guidelines. Basically Mulholland drive is the story of a young girl who comes to Hollywood with high hopes of becoming an actress. The film is told in two parts. My interpretation is that the first (Watts as Betty) part is psychotic delusions of the young girl as she reconstructs her past leading up to the promise of a brilliant acting career. This is presented as reality and the viewer has no idea it is false. The shift to the second (Watts as Diane) part shows some shifting of roles, and depicts the true story whereby the young girl fails to become an major actress. Her identity is valid, as Diane, in the second part showing her dismal failure, while Rita of the first delusional part becomes Camilla in the second reality part.

Naomi Watts thus plays two roles with different identities, in part one and in part two. The two parts are cued by the change in her name from the delusional Betty (part I) to the real Diane (part II). In a clever signal of this personality change, the waitress at Winkie's is named Diane when Betty and Rita go to eat there in the first fantasy part, while this same waitress becomes Betty when Watts as Diane goes to Winkie's in the real second part.

The plot shift from fantasy to reality mirrors the high hopes and aspirations as fantasy (Part I as Betty) and dismal failure as reality (Part II as Diane), that happens so often as young would-be performers seek fame in Hollywood but end up as failures.

I feel it's hypocritical to call a movie a "masterpiece" (which this is), while at the same time slapping it a bit for the very essence of what it is and tries to achieve... but that's what keeps this from being a "10" for me. Because, after watching and then exhaustingly reading about the film (and understanding more about it that way), it's pretty obvious that many/most people won't "get it" fully the first time... and that detracts a little... even though the complexities are what ultimately makes it great. Does that make sense?

It's a Catch-22. You can't KNOW about it before you start... that would ruin the presentation... and yet there's a very legit chance you won't fully understand it either if you go in cold. It needs either a 2nd viewing, or the post-movie research to understand (if you're willing to do that, and even if you DO, you're going to want to watch it again anyway). All the clues are there and it all makes sense, once you know. But it is so intentionally deceptive, it's hard to know what you don't know.

But it's brilliant, artistic, evocative, and clever. It slaps hard at Hollywood and the dream machine, and the disillusionment of aspiration. There is quite simply nothing like it. It has been called "the best film of the 21st Century," and I won't dispute that. But it IS hard to follow and understand and demands more of the viewer than almost any film I've ever seen. So I'd say watch it, draw your own conclusions, read about it, hear what others think and believe... and then watch it again. You will be rewarded

But there is no denying that it is absolute brilliance, and David Lynch's crowning achievement.