Lost Highway

I'm not going into the plotline here because I'm limited to 1000 words. I don't think I can wrap up the plot that space.

I'm a recent inductee into the strange and twisted world of David Lynch. It all started when I caught a rerun of "Twin Peaks" on a low-budget digital satellite channel. Since then I've been hooked, and have had fun with cult films and filmmakers since.

Lost Highway is, as descried by Lynch, a new twist on film-noir. And only Lynch could put a twist like this on a classic genre. People keep wanting to draw comparisons to other films, saying: "Well, it's not Blue Velvet" or "It's not Mulholland Dr,"...they're right. It's Lost Highway, a unique and twisted foray down a dark highway that may or may not be entirely metaphorical...or metaphysical.

One of the things that I've noticed about David Lynch--and what probably inspires much of the hatred non-Lynch fans have towards his work--is that he doesn't explain everything. He lays it out, says "Here's my story. What do YOU make of it?" It's an incredible artistic attitude, much like viewing a Dali painting as opposed to a Da Vinci, and not for everyone's tastes.

Lost Highway is open to many interpretations, as are most of Lynch's works. Are we in our world, and being invaded by some outside force? Are we in a world we don't know we're in? Are we in Hell? What would you do if this happened to you? Maybe we are all someone else, really.

This film is at the same time allegorical, philosophical, incomprehensible, and satirical. It warps understood movie conventions, and is always pulling the unexpected.

All that praise aside, it is NOT the best of Lynch's work. One would have to be a fan to enjoy this, and should establish that fanhood with his better works, like Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, or "Twin Peaks."

If one has a set standard of how movies should be, an A-B-C pattern, stay away. But if it's originality, unanswered questions, and a break from standard Hollywood convention, go full ahead.

In my humble opinion, it's better than Wild at Heart and Dune, but not most of Lynch's rest. It is definitely an experience, but not one everybody will enjoy.

"Lost Highway" is a David Lynch film from 1997 and, like most David Lynch films, it's hard to describe, hard to understand, and even after you've described it, you haven't told anyone what it's about because it's not about what you just described.

Bill Pullman is Fred Madison, a saxophone player sitting on Death Row for the murder of his wife (Patricia Arquette).

In the beginning of the movie, a tape is delivered to Fred and Renee's home. It shows the front of their house, but each tape sent shows more and more of the house, including the inside. The film "Cache" does a similar thing, with tapes of the house being sent. Cache is also a film that causes a lot of discussion, and the director is probably a devotee of Lynch.

Fred is ultimately filmed with Renee's dead body, though he remembers nothing. He's found guilty and is on death row, though he is tortured by the fact that he really doesn't know what happened to Renee. As a result he has bad headaches and can't sleep.

He goes to the prison doctor, who asks him how he's sleeping, and he says not well. The doctor gives him pills and says, "You'll sleep now." Thus begins Fred's dream.

In Mulholland Drive, the film begins with a dream; here, the dream comes a little later. And you know how dreams are -- things are different, people are different, everything is askew.

In the dream, Bill Pullman becomes Balthazar Getty who plays a mechanic, Pete Dayton. The dream becomes a noir, complete with a femme fatale (Arquette). In the beginning of the film, Arquette has straight black hair as Fred's wife. Now she's a blond named Alice, who is trying to help him find answers. Pete Dayton wakes up in prison, but he gets out and seeks revenge. He knows what happened to Renee. In Fred's dream, Pete sees The Lost Highway Hotel, where Renee had liaisons with Dick Laurent (Robert Loggia), who heads a crime syndicate.

If you just sat through this film, you wouldn't have any idea what was happening except that it's dark and strange and the characters seem to wind up as other people. The thing with Lynch is it's a dream world where not everything makes sense. In this case, it may be the dream world of a schizophrenic.

Lynch's movies feel like dreams -- they're disturbing and something is not quite right. People make weird statements. Does it all mean something? Probably, but I don't think we're meant to know everything.

Another fascinating film from David Lynch.

Clearly, as with most of David Lynch's films, Lost Highway is not for everyone. It is, as Lynch intended it to be, a film realization of a dream. In this regard, it is comparable, in terms of artistry and raw intensity to Kurosawa's _Dreams_. Indeed, in terms of sensory experience - cinematography and sound, for example - Kurosawa and Lynch have few rivals. However, the comparison falls away rather quickly in consideration of the film's content. Lost Highway is really no dream, but a nightmare.

Let's face it, like it or not, everything Lynch does is intentional. This film has inspired polarized reviews here on IMDB. Those looking for a plot-heavy movie that they do not necessarily have to pay attention to tend to despise it. Those who are open to allowing this manipulative, intensely disturbing and thought-provoking film to carry them into its own parcel of hell love it. This is, in my opinion, what good art can do.

Like a dream, Lost Highway has as many plots as it does viewers with their own individual interpretations and perspectives. It forces itself upon you with a vengeance, but simultaneously encourages the kind of disengagement you experience when you are conscious that you are dreaming.

I recommend Lost Highway highly. See it with intelligent, open-minded friends who like to talk about film experiences. And expect that the conversation will keep you up way past your bed time.

All hail David Lynch. All hail the other David Lynch.

Lynch is not a complex man, I think; it is easy to read him. But he is cinematically articulate and its a pleasure of a special sort when you meet an articulate artist. His interest is simply described: duals.

All his films work with some exploration of this idea. What makes him interesting is that he doesn't work the usual way, with a reality and then a surreal overlay. Both elements in his experiments are what we coarsely call "surreal." The game in traveling with him is an investment in the idea that there is no anchor to reality, that all references are among imaginations, sometimes twisted. "Mulholland" was a little too conventional for me because you could actually explain things and one of the realities was sorta real if you ignored a few things.

My favorite Lynch is "Velvet," which imposes the two warring realities on film genres. The most fun is the seemingly straight "Straight" story, which is perhaps the most bizarre encounters of dual strangeness because it seems so ordinary. Dualing roots that keep getting mowed.

But if you are into Lynch, this is an extraordinary pleasure, this one. Its the most obvious in plan, the least hidden in the swirl of two worlds. Neither world is anchored in reality and each hallucinates the other. Probably the only anchor with reality is the most disturbing character in appearance, The Robert Blake guy.

But even these two surrealities are nested in cinematic realities. One is the gangster movie, elevated to cosmic status by the French new wave. The other is visual jazz and the accompanying dream linkages that have been similarly blazed, starting with Dennis Hopper so far as American films.

What you are open to determines what you can get, I suppose. What Lynch provides is a sort of post-post modern notion of film as sometimes centered in itself, with its own cosmologies and lives that always refer to other film notions and never to real ones. There is no fold of us as viewer, no acknowledgment of our world at all (except for the mysterious videos). Celestial madness.

I prepared for this by watching four bad Holmes movies in a row. How we detect and discover is what this is about and is so superior to what we normally encounter, you should watch it.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The first time I watched this movie I enjoyed it but was left confused as to what was really going on. As a huge fan of Lynch I was expecting as much. So a few days later I watched it again and everything clicked and made perfect sense and seemed so obvious this time.

If you hated it the first time and found nothing interesting then you probably shouldn't watch it again and put yourself though the torture a second time. But if you feel how I did, watch it again and you'll enjoy it much more.

This movie does require a second viewing for a complete understanding of what's happening. In Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire you get what's going on the first time. Multiple viewings make the details much clearer but you don't leave confused like with Lost Highway.

Great story, the first part is truly one of the scariest things I've ever seen. I think one thing about this movie that is interesting is that almost all of the actors are playing roles that you've never seen them do before. And they do it very well. I was a little apprehensive about Pullman being the lead, as I know him from Spaceballs and Independence Day, but he is very good in this. You rarely get a bad performance in a Lynch movie.

My only criticism is that the movie is a little slow and long. Not in a bad way but I do find myself waiting for the end as opposed to some movies where I don't want them to end.