Mulholland Drive

Wow, what a strange film. It's a David Lynch movie so it's no surprise that it is weird.

I defy anyone to totally explain everything in this film. I can't be done. After some research following my second viewing of this film, I pretty much know most of the story but on a first look, and with no aid from other reviewers or outside help, it is hard to figure things out. So, if you're in that boat and was confused, don't feel bad; that's normal. Let me just say the key to the film is Naomi Watts' character.

At any rate, I find the film fascinating. I love the wonderful visuals and rich colors and find each character in this movie really different and fun to watch. The camera-work is excellent and the music is creepy, a la Lynch's "Blue Velvet." There also are some good sound effects to help some of the dramatic scenes. In all, it's very well scored.

Like Lynch's "Twin Peaks" television series, this was a film in which the end was pieced together afterward since Lynch thought this film was going to be a long, drawn-out TV series. When that didn't happen, he pieced at the last minute this ending. That may account for some of the confusion at the end and the lack of explanations concerning characters we see earlier in the film but who mysteriously disappear.

The theme of the story, supposedly, is a negative comment about Hollywood and what it does to people, especially those whose dreams of being an actor are crushed.

Both Watts and the other leading lady, Laura Eleana Harring, are very interesting to watch, especially in their celebrated lesbian sex scene. Looks- wise, both women were chameleons, looking average at times, stunning at other times.

I enjoyed this movie more on the second viewing than the first. It's not just a curiosity piece; it's a very intriguing movie.....just don't feel stupid if you can't make sense of a few things.

10/10

Recently, I read an excerpt from a book by Dennis Lim called "David Lynch: The Man from Another Place." In it, the author mentions how much Lynch despises interpretation of his work. He writes:

"Writing about David Lynch, it can be hard not to hear his voice in your head, protesting the violence being done to his work. 'As soon as you put things in words, no one ever sees the film the same way,' he once told me. 'And that's what I hate, you know. Talking—it's real dangerous.' Not for nothing does "Mulholland Drive," the Lynch movie that has invited the most fervent flurry of explication, end with a word of caution: 'Silencio.'"

This reminded me that 11 years before this edit I had written this very review on IMDb, which contained an interpretation of the film's plot. I've decided to remove all of that. Whether or not you are satisfied with a particular interpretation of the plot should be irrelevant to your enjoyment of the film. I enjoyed it before I had that satisfying interpretation. And I'm hoping that I can clear it from my mind the next time I watch "Mulholland Dr."

I will leave one thing from my original post. A quote by Peter Greenaway. "I would argue that if you want to write narratives, be an author, be a novelist, don't be a film maker. Because I believe film making is so much more exciting in areas which aren't primarily to do with narrative."

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.

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!

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.