Sunday, November 2, 2008

Film #81: Mulholland Dr.

NOTE: This is an article primarily for those who’ve already seen this movie, so SPOILERS abound. Still, see the movie if you haven’t--it's a must-watch--and then read this.

Just recently, I perused an article on Daniel Johnson’s Film Babble Blog titled 7 Years Later, Does Mulholland Drive Make Any More Sense? In it, Johnson vividly recounts a recent experience of watching David Lynch’s 2001 film with a group that had largely never seen it before, many of whom, when the film was through, were just as befuddled as a lot of viewers have long been with it for seven years. I would say Johnson characterizes some members of the audience as being absolutely infuriated by Lynch’s work, because it’s a movie that refuses to explain itself (much like Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey—one of Lynch’s favorite films--did back in 1968, when a lot of people were similarly either fascinated or angered). Anyway, Johnson’s article has inspired me to finally put down into words an interpretation of this masterpiece—one that only peeked at my conscious initially.

Now, I’ve never read word one regarding an explanation of Mulholland Dr. (which is the REAL title of the film—the word “drive” is not supposed to be spelled out; I’ll explain why later). I never wanted to, because I chose to just enjoy the film in all its beauteous mystery. However, upon the second or third viewing, the puzzle pieces clicked into place for me and I’m now satisfied that my interpretation is the “correct” one. Unfortunately, this might robs Lynch’s film of some of its chilling perplexity, but it also gives it more of a sense of tragedy and heart. I’m fine with the trade-off. Mulholland Dr. will remain circuitous enough for me, and will continue to contain a lot more clues to other interpretations that could be just as valid as my own. At any rate, it will always be interesting enough for many more viewings. This on top of the fact that it is unspeakably gorgeous to look at and listen to make it a top favorite of mine, and certainly one of Lynch’s greatest achievements as America's premier living moviemaker.

Before delving deeply into Mulholland Dr., the viewer has to recognize that Lynch has three major obsessions in his work: abstraction, eroticism and—most importantly--dreams. And they further have to realize that any filmmaker who’s interested in dreams is also very much interested in the machinations of film art itself. And I mean, beyond looking at film as a way to tell a story or make a buck. Lynch, I feel, like any great director--Coppola and Kubrick have said this is so--sees the very viewing of films as a replication of the dream state. Think about it: we’re in a darkened room; we’re perfectly still; we’re (ideally) quiet; and we’re raptly interpreting mere shadows on a wall. You gotta admit, that’s about as close to wakeful dreaming as you’re going to get. This is part of what bewitches us all about the EXPERIENCE of watching a movie—and by that, I mean going to a theater to watch a movie. Lynch will tell you that this is really the ideal way to experience his cinematic works. Check out this spoof that was done of an I-Phone commercial starring the man himself and you’ll know that this is a fact:




Now that you know that Lynch doesn’t really condone the viewing of his movies anywhere but in a theater (he doesn’t even put chapter stops on most of his DVD releases), you have to ask yourself “Well, why? Isn’t watching a movie at home basically the same as seeing it in a theater?” No way, man!!! At home, you're fatally distracted by any number of things—the phone, the lights, your dog or cat, your family, friends or lover. But, in a theater, you’re lulled into a dreamy fog by the very nature of projected film, because you have no other choice: you've given yourself over completely to it. So, rightly, Lynch uses this technology to lure the viewer into the abstracted worlds he creates.

So we know now that dreams and movies are two things that are important to this artist. That’s good, because remembering that is key to interpreting Mulholland Dr.

Now think back for me. In almost every movie that has ever been made, if the filmmaker is attempting to show a character we’re following as they experience a dream, they will first introduce the character and his/her however complicated situation, then show them going to sleep, or asleep in the bed or whatever, then they’ll show us the dream they’re experiencing in their head. Then they’ll show the character waking up from that dream, usually wide-eyed and sweaty. This is almost always the case, unless the filmmaker is trying to trick us into thinking something outlandish is happening in reality when BANG the dreamer awakens and we find it was only happening in their tired brains.

So we have here: real life, sleep/dream, awakening. The natural three act structure of a dream on film (or in reality).

Movies, too, have three acts: set-up, conflict, resolution. Just to remind you, this is very similar to the structure we all experience when we go to sleep. We set-up our bed, we go to sleep, and then have conflicts with the various thoughts rattling around in our heads, and then we wake up and resolve to make sense of it all (or to forget the whole thing) before we go on with our day.

What Lynch, I think, decided to do with Mulholland Dr(eam) is to screw with the natural order of each set of three acts. In his film, we get the dream/conflict (the second act) first, THEN we get the real life/setup (the first act), THEN we get the awakening/resolution. It’s really that simple.

I think it’s important to briefly remind the reader of what dreams are or could be. I say “could be” because no one really knows if they have any meaning or not. It’s a question that, as of yet, has no provable answer. We could go all Freudian and say that everything in a dream is a symbol for something else. We could say that dreams are the brain relishing in its holder’s deepest fears and desires. Or we could just say that dreams are the random neural sweepings of an average day—that they are the mindjunk with which we no longer have any practical use. I think that dreams are all of these things, and more: they can be prophecy, regret, horror, wackiness, want, memory, inspiration, and escape, at once and all together. And I think Lynch's Mulholland Dr. reflects that better than any of his other works.

That said, Mulholland Dr. begins with a dazzling, purple-hued swing dance number—set to the first bit of Angelo Badalamenti’s astonishing score--in which we see real couples athletically dancing behind a process shot of even more couples dancing. We don’t have any idea what this intro means, really, until—if we’re paying attention—later on in the film. It’s here that we see our first images of Betty, played with utmost brilliance by Naomi Watts. But we only see her here as a ghostly, smiling visage.

Then we see a camera drifting through an apartment, into a bedroom, and into a pillow on the bed. Easy enough. Someone’s going to sleep. But who? Maybe it’s us? Someone else? We don't know, so we have to continue on...

Now we cut to a limousine, at night, driving up Mulholland Drive, creeping through the darkened, mysterious road that Lynch himself says inspired the first spark of an idea for him. The credits begin to roll here. I say this because credits--despised by many--are the natural signifiers to the beginnings and ends of movie dreams. Credits sequences ease us into the dream of cinema, and end credits wake us up; this is why you see so many people get up out of their seats at the first sign of end credits' they're trying to get on with their day. At any rate: we watch this limo cruising behind the credits, and the horrible thing that befalls it once they are over. And from here we're lead into a mystery involving a dark-haired woman (Laura Elena Herring) who wanders absent-mindedly away from this scene and into an abandoned Hollywood apartment.

It’s here that we see our first shining images of Betty, played with verve by Naomi Watts. I remember hearing great things about Watts’ performance way before the film was released (it had won the Best Director award at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival before it was unleashed on theaters the following fall). But her first line readings, to me, seemed stiff, unreal—as if she were acting a role, and acting it badly. Still, I stayed with her, because Betty here is total sunshine and sweetness, her pink sweater very barely buttoned. I have to admit, I loved her right from the start: it's one of cinema's most notable breakthrough performances. Anyway, Betty is escorted out of the L.A. airport at which she’s just arrived by an elderly couple who wish her well in her Hollywood sojourn. They part ways, the elderly couple getting into a limo (we get a bizarre glimpse of them driving away that’s a little portent of things to come: remember these people...)

Now, I have to stop myself. It’s not my intention to write a shot-by-shot support of my own interpretation of Mulholland Dr.--I wouldn’t take the fun or the challenge of the movie away from anyone who hasn’t seen it. But let’s just say that the meeting of these two women and the relationship that develops between them is very much at the center of the movie. It’s a pairing that’s largely controlled by Betty. The dark-haired woman, striken with amnesia from a head trauma, has to rush for a name once she awkwardly meets Betty, so she takes the name “Rita” from a poster for another film about obsession Gilda, starring Rita Hayworth. (That, alone, could be the basis for a film theory thesis right there, and probably already has been.)

Rita, throughout this first part of the film, is at Betty’s mercy, like a lost pup taken in by a lonely girl. Betty and Rita are two sides of one personality, each intermingling with each other (the film sometimes feels like Lynch’s take on Bergman’s Persona, mirroring some shots from that masterpiece). Rita even takes to covering up her long black hair under a wig that replicates Betty’s short blond ‘do. further driving home the point. What follows is a mystery that often feels like the adaptation of a Nancy Drew book, and a passionate love story replete with one of the sexiest love scenes of all time.

There are a few more elements in this section of the movie. We get the introduction of two detective characters (Robert Forster and Brent Briscoe) who unfortunately promptly disappear (just like some characters do in dreams, don’t ya know). We have two Winkie’s diner patrons: one (Patrick Fischler) who recounts a terrifying vision to his friend, and then is doomed to relive it right there. And we get a grisly, though humorous, scene with a hit man (Mark Pellegrino) who messes up a job somethin’ awful. And then we get Justin Theroux as Adam Kesher, a put-upon director who’s being uber-pressured into casting a specific girl for a role in a movie—to the point where he’s called to a secret conference at an abandoned ranch where he confers with a creepy calm cowboy (veteran Lynch producer Monty Montgomery, here billed as Lafayette Montgomery, who blesses us with one of the great one-scene performances ever in motion pictures). Let's remember that the cowboy is one of Hollywood's most iconic images. Let's also remember that we DO see this character TWO more times. And notice the scene ends with an image of the Hollywood sign: Mulholland Dr. is very much, also, about the conflicting images of Hollywood--as a dream maker and a Marilyn Monroe-killing dream breaker.

There are more characters: Betty’s chatty landlord (MGM veteran Ann Miller, in her final film role); a spooky, psychic next-door neighbor (Lee Grant); a band of terrifying film financiers (Dan Hedaya and composer Angelo Badalamenti); an unctuous film producer (James Karen) who auditions Betty with a scene from a unctuous soap opera where she’s to play a love scene with a much older man (Chad Everett); a pool cleaner (Billy Ray Cyrus) who's caught messing around with Adam's wife; and an extra-weird overlord named Mr. Rogue (Michael J. Anderson) who seems to be quietly pulling the strings of the whole affair (is this a reference to Bela Legosi's character in Ed Wood's Glen or Glenda?).

By the time the mystery Betty and Rita are trying to solve takes us all to the Club Silencio, this dream has definitely reached critical mass. In a scene that seems like an extended homage to past Lynch films (especially Blue Velvet), we sit enraptured along with these women as they witness a devastated singer (Rebekah Del Rio) as she performs a Spanish version of Roy Orbison’s “Crying.” (I wanna note here that, while I watched it in the theater, the sound of this singer’s performance was something I had never experienced before; it was crystal clear, echo-y, and utterly unforgettable, even in the cheap cinema I was watching it in.) It;s the best scene in the movie, for sure.  This incredible piece of memorabilia lets you know that David Lynch had a specific vision of how this film, and particularly this scene, should be projected and played:



After the performance at Club Silencio, during which Diane discovers the Blue Box in her bag, Diane and Rita rush home to open it.  But before Rita can turn the box's key, she discovers that Diane has disappeared.   The box opens, the darkness it contains engulfs the screen, and then, Rita disappears, with the box falling to the floor of Betty's aunt's apartment.  It’s here that the dream ends…

…and now we’re in reality, where we see a wholly different Naomi Watts, now as a woman named Diane Selwyn. But wait. Wasn’t Diane Selwyn the name of the dead woman whose murder Betty and Rita were investigating? Okay, maybe...anyway... Diane, unlike Betty, is completely disheveled—in fact, when I first saw the movie, it took me a minute to realize that this was STILL Naomi Watts. Instead of being powdered and dynamic, like Betty, she’s now dark-eyed, sweaty, neurotic, unconfident, and completely depressed. She’s getting over a breakup with Camilla, a woman who looks exactly like Rita. But now Camilla/Rita is in control, now having given up on her love affair with Diane/Betty in favor of a new one with Adam, the director of the new movie she’s in.

Now, the supremely confident Camilla is calling the shots. She cruelly invites Diane to her film set, where she let’s her see her making out with Adam Kesher. And then she equally cruelly, and manipulatively, picks her up in a limousine (remember the limousine?) and takes her up Mulholland Dr. (where we see the same shots that began the film) to the director’s modern Eames-designed house, where she introduces her to Theroux’s demanding mother (Ann Miller again—what’s going on here??). And then she puts Diane through the supreme heartbreak: the announcement of her engagement to the slimy Adam.

It’s here that Diane is sent over the edge. She’s seen meeting at Winkie’s (remember Winkie’s?), where she sees the nametag of a waitress named Betty, with a hit man (Mark Pellegrino again), to whom she gives a picture of Camilla/Rita (“This is the girl”) and pays him to kill her. He says he’ll leave her a blue key (which figures into the dream portion of the film) when the job is done.

When Diane discovers the blue key (that opens the mysterious blue box), after a fruitless try at masturbating while looking not at her beloved Camilla/Rita, but the stuccoed ceiling of her apartment, she is overcome with remorse, guilt, anger and suicidal thoughts.

This is where we wake up from the dream we saw a few minutes before. The two tiny figures of the old people that first greeted Diane/Betty upon her arrival in this dream town of Hollywood, sneak under the door of her apartment and, emerging from the ground-level trash (that, frankly, looks like a vagina), they become as big as life. Diane screams horribly as they corner her into her bedroom, and in response, she reaches into her bedside table, pulls out a gun, and shoots herself in the head, becoming the corpse that she and Rita once discovered.

I think that this is all a fair description of Mulholland Dr. It’s not my style to go through the ins and outs of a movie; I get impatient and even angry with movie reviews that merely recount the plot of a film without telling us what, truly, makes it worth watching. But I feel that, if Daniel Johnson wrote an article with the title of 7 Years Later, Does Mulholland Drive Make Any More Sense? was worth writing, then there must be many people out there who are still confused by the meaning of this incredible movie. So, finally, I felt the need to write this article that had been brewing in my head for seven years.

I want to conclude by mentioning a few more details that I think make Mulholland Dr. absolutely necessary viewing, even for those who may be afraid of attacking Lynch’s film. I’m in love with everything about this movie, but there are five aspects of it I truly have to point out:

(1) The incredible audition scene with Betty and Woody Katz (Chad Everett). Before this scene, we get Betty giving a sub-par reading of this corny scene with Rita as her amateur acting partner. But when she’s under pressure, and in different and more important circumstances, Betty (Naomi Watts) delivers a stunning performance as a woman who is threatened by her own passion and would be driven to kill if it doesn’t turn out her way. I am floored by the cornball Hollywood characters in this scene--a director who's incredibly poor at his job, an actor who's used to a lot less than what he gets, a coterie of hangers-on who are unprepared for what they witness. When I watched this in the theater, I could feel the audience immediately get roped in by this stand-alone scene; it's here that I knew that Naomi Watts' breathy, erotic performance was one of the best I've ever witnessed, and her transformation immediately afterwards into the Betty we've gotten to know is superb. Chad Everett, a former 70s TV star with a troubled career, has never been handed an on-screen moment like this. He should thank his lucky stars for Lynch, who gave him a scene that will forever be remembered in the annals of cinema.

(2) The alluring photography from Peter Deming, who seems to blossom extraordinarily under Lynch’s direction. With this and his work on Lynch’s amazing (and similar) Lost Highway, he is wholly transformed into an artist who is categorically separated from his workmanlike work on such films as My Cousin Vinny, House Party and Scream 2/3 (although his work on From Hell approaches his Lynchian work).

(3) The detail-oriented, creative casting by Johanna Ray. There are a great many characters in Mulholland Dr. and Ray seems to have found the perfect person for every little teeny, tiny role. Look at Ray’s resume and you’ll see she’s someone responsible for the effect of a lot of our favorite films: Kill Bill, Inland Empire, From Dusk Til Dawn, Lost Highway, Showgirls, Starship Troopers, Lost Highway, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blue Velvet, Map of the Human Heart and the U.S. version of Funny Games.

(4) The great scene where the dream Camilla Rhodes (“This is the girl") auditions for Theroux’s film. Melissa George, in luchious 50s era costuming and makeup, lip-synchs to Linda Scott’s version of the Hammerstein/Kern song “I’ve Told Every Little Star” with a verve that's hard to be oblivious to. I adore how Lynch fits a musical number into almost every film he’s made (there's also "16 Reasons Why I Love You" to enjoy here). Lynch fans will recall Dean Stockwell lip-synching Roy Orbison’s “In Dreams” at a crucial moment in Blue Velvet or Laurel Near’s version of Lynch’s song “In Heaven” (later covered by The Pixies) in Eraserhead, or the dance number to Little Eva’s “The Loco-Motion” in Inland Empire, or Julee Cruise’s burlesques in Twin Peaks. Lynch loves musicals—they’re steeped in the sort of surrealality he adores.


(5) Oh, how I love the incredible early scene in Winkie’s Diner. Can you think of anything more terrifying? This is one of the film's few stand-alone scenes; these characters never make a reappearance in the dream, but then, don't we all have dreams occasionally peopled by strangers?

I love Mulholland Dr. I love its mystery. I love its craft. I love its passion. I love, love, love it all. And you should, too--even if it confuses you.
 

9 comments:

Joseph said...

What a read. :)

I definitely need to watch Mulholland Dr. again; it's been years since I first saw it.

Dan said...

Really loved this piece.

I've often criticized myself for when writing about a movie that I don't get deep enough - I just try and report surface qualities. In doing so I think I've done Lynch's films an injustice. Still I stand by what I wrote because I feel that it was accurate to the mood of that particular screening and all. I personally love Mulholland Dr. (yes I made that mistake on my post) and think that its extremely beautiful that we'll be talking about what it means forever.
- Dan

blake said...

Good lord. Well done. While I differ with you slightly on the interpretation of the film, we agree on most major points. And mostly, I'm just impressed with your ability to verbalize your understanding. This is something I'd never be able to do with Mulholland Dr.

Tony Dayoub said...

Definitely a spot-on interpretation of Lynch's film.

Obviously, in her dream, Diane Selwyn is trying to rework her relationship with Camilla to her benefit. This bears a strong resemblance to the way Lost Highway has Fred (Bill Pullman) recast himself as Pete (Balthazar Getty) in order to rework his fractured relationship with his wife, Renee (Patricia Arquette). Click on the link I provided to see my examination of that film.

What makes Mulholland Dr. even more amazing is the fact that Lynch had originally meant for it to be the pilot for an ABC series. Lynch only added the famous lesbian sex scene, and most of the events following it, after it failed to sell and was aimed at a theatrical release instead.

True, this may have made the film more perplexing for the casual viewer, but for the director's fans, it is what made the film truly "Lynchian."

Great post, Dean.

MovieMan0283 said...

Before I saw it, I overhead someone tell someone else: "The first half is a dream." Oddly enough, I didn't feel it was spoiled, there was so much to figure out, and its structure seems kind of obvious in a way (though that's probably only true with 20/20 hindsight).

You have pretty much nailed the accepted interpretation of this film. I will probably write about it one of these days, as I consider it possibly the only American masterpiece of the 21st century (though many films remain to be seen by me so that's hardly a definitive statement).

Incidentally, I've never seen it in the theaters but the majority of the times I've watched it, it's been alone, in a dark room, late at night. This duplicates some aspects of the theatrical experience but also adds another quality, as there's no one else around.

Yes, in the order in which I saw them (following Mulholland Drive)

-The cut to Bob crouching behind the bed in Twin Peaks.
-The slow zoom out to reveal the Mystery Man snarling and holding back the curtain in Lost Highway.
-The somehow horrifying transition from Laura Dern's face into the bearded man's in Inland Empire.

And all the moments of heightened dread Lynch manages to evoke in his works. I don't know how he does it but it far surpasses any other feelings of primal dead or terror I've felt in watching a movie. It's simply on a different plane...might one say a dreamlike one?

Стивен said...

Mulholland Drive makes perfect sense.

MD is “about” a man named “Adam” who has made the wrong choice and is thrown out of his “home” (Eden). Several characters step in to guide “Adam” to make the correct choice, including a “godfather” (get it?) and a “Cowboy” who is unmistakably shown to be Christ Resurrected, the horseman of Revelation 19:21.

Who is it that “Adam” must choose? Camilla Rhodes—whose initials are Chi Rho—☧: Christ. Camilla is introduced to us in the movie after her execution is botched and her missing body is not found in what should be her tomb. After she has gone missing from her execution, “Camilla Rhodes” (Christ) goes to “Havenhurst” (heaven) where she meets its manager “Coco Lenoix,” who is shown to be God (i.e., heaven’s manager) by a variety of rather obvious symbols. Betty Elms/Diane Selwyn represent Judas, complete with a Last Supper scene and the Judas kiss. Is the allegory not obvious enough for you yet? There is much, much more. Every scene of this film is an allegorical representation of Christianity. Many of the characters in MD are different aspects of the triune Christian God: Coco Lenoix, the “godfather” Castigliane brothers, the “Cowboy”, “Camilla Rhodes”/Rita as the incarnate Jesus, the actor Woody Katz, the Jesus-lookalike Ed (also executed for his “history of the world, in numbers”, i.e., the Bible), Mr. Roque, and, most blasphemously, the bum behind Winkies. Once you have this "key", the clues all become immediately obvious.

Adding all this up, there is a remarkable conclusion that cannot be missed: MD is by far the greatest blasphemy against the Christian God ever to appear in film.

“Adam” catches his wife in bed with a man sporting a serpent tattoo. Lynch uses many symbols to show that Adam’s hilltop garden-like home is, in fact, Eden, and that Adam’s wife is Eve, and that Gene the pool cleaner is the serpent. Adam's wife calls him a “bastard”—Adam has no father—and says, “damn you Adam!”

Cynthia is the Virgin Mary, who is shown as Cynthia speaks. When Cynthia’s overture to Adam to spend the night at her place is rebuffed, Cynthia says “you don’t know what you’re missing.” Adam, indeed no man, has slept with the Virgin Mary, and hence all men, represented by Adam, are ignorant of this experience.

Betty/Diane simultaneously represent Judas and all unbelievers. Betty arrives onscreen with the declaration “I can’t believe it!”–damning skepticism that seals her fate from the beginning.

But MD at its most blasphemous is not its outward story of a love affair gone horribly wrong, but its allegorical portrayal of the Gospel account of God’s love for man, represented by the bum behind Winkie's. In the exchange between Dan and Herb at Winkie’s, Dan says he wishes “to get rid of this god-awful feeling,” that we see a short time later is caused by a god-awful man. The entire film is about the source of Dan’s god-awful feeling: an awful God. Dan dies immediately upon seeing this God, causing Herb to exclaim “My God!” The awful man “that’s doing it,” the “bum,” the “beast,” the monster behind Winkie’s, is God. Lynch even shows us a Christian cross and Virgin Mary graffiti as Herb and Dan walk to see the bum.

The Cowboy is Christ resurrected, who will return one more time if Adam does good, and twice on his horse in Revelation 19:21 to kill the unbelievers if Adam does bad.

As with Jean-Luc Godard’s film-on-film Contempt, the final word is “Silencio.” Lynch adapts many key ingredients from Contempt: a doomed relationship with a beautiful, contemptuous, bewigged and betoweled Camilla/e, her severe head injury in a spectacular and highly stylized automobile accident, the vivid use of red and blue to indicate the director’s purpose, an actress’s pop singing audition, and most important, Contempt’s principal theme of “the fight against the gods.” Like Contempt, Lynch’s theme is about “the fight against the gods,” or rather, the fight against the Christian God.

Joseph Aisenberg said...

Dean, liked your view. It's rather similar to mine, only I saw the film as Lynch's take on the Bierce story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" or the sixties horror film, "Carnival of Souls." I thought that what was going on in Mulholland Dr. was that in the moments after Diane Selwyn had shot herself, while her brain was still alive, she was essentially hallucinating another better life and self. Only this shadow world inevitably began to unravel and decay as she expired bringing us full circle to her suicide and her death, the movie's death.

I agree that Watts really was terrific, only on first viewing I was incredibly annoyed by her wooden, peachy, "Gee-whilikers!" performance. It wasn't until the moment she auditioned the scene from the soap opera, which you rightly singled out, that I saw how great she was, what extraordinary range she had. It struck me as a very amusing joke that Betty/Diane should seem somehow more authentic playing a part than as her real self, a hint of the sudden personality shift to come. It's an idea Lynch would take to its breaking limit with Laura Dern in "Inland Empire."

The two sides of Woman, or the "Persona" theme as you called it, is a pet device of Lynch's. In his latest film, with Dern, he's splintered the feminine psyche even further. The woman "character" seems to be at least three or more simultaneously. Partricia Arquette played both the Rita and Betty wife/whore roles in "Lost Highway" (that one is interesting because there the male character is also split in two as well). In "Blue Velvet" we have Dern as the sunshine peachy Bettyesque girl, with Rossellini cast in the sexually screwy Rita-like image of noir suffering and betrayal. The concept actually shows it's first inklings, if in far less obviously oppositional terms, in Lynch's first film "Eraserhead". Mary, Henry's wife, seems like the plain Betty girl next door type, except that when the difficulties of being a mother to a horrible mutant baby make life a little too tough she abandons Henry and her child leaving Henry open to the temptations of the dark, sexy, slightly sinister Rita-ish woman who actually does live next door. Her face eerily emerges from darkness as she tells Henry, "I locked myself out of my apartment." In "Blue Velvet" it will be the daylight Dern who comes out of the darkness, suggesting an ambiguous underside to the niceness implied by Mary's leaving Henry, but connecting it to the sexy aura of Lynch's various dark girls. This bad girl dangerousness seems to be what so many of his innocenty male characters are secretly looking for, but are scared of finding.

Women seem to be projection booths for Lynch's fantasies and paranoiac fears of betrayal stemming from an uncontrollable attraction to them. What's fascinating is that even when he tells things from the woman perspective, as in "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" or "Mulholland Dr." or "Inland Empire" the women are even more confusing to themselves than they were as objects of male contemplation.

Joseph Aisenberg said...

Dean, liked your view. It's rather similar to mine, only I saw the film as Lynch's take on the Bierce story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge" or the sixties horror film, "Carnival of Souls." I thought that what was going on in Mulholland Dr. was that in the moments after Diane Selwyn had shot herself, while her brain was still alive, she was essentially hallucinating another better life and self. Only this shadow world inevitably began to unravel and decay as she expired bringing us full circle to her suicide and her death, the movie's death.

I agree that Watts really was terrific, only on first viewing I was incredibly annoyed by her wooden, peachy, "Gee-whilikers!" performance. It wasn't until the moment she auditioned the scene from the soap opera, which you rightly singled out, that I saw how great she was, what extraordinary range she had. It struck me as a very amusing joke that Betty/Diane should seem somehow more authentic playing a part than as her real self, a hint of the sudden personality shift to come. It's an idea Lynch would take to its breaking limit with Laura Dern in "Inland Empire."

The two sides of Woman, or the "Persona" theme as you called it, is a pet device of Lynch's. In his latest film, with Dern, he's splintered the feminine psyche even further. The woman "character" seems to be at least three or more simultaneously. Partricia Arquette played both the Rita and Betty wife/whore roles in "Lost Highway" (that one is interesting because there the male character is also split in two as well). In "Blue Velvet" we have Dern as the sunshine peachy Bettyesque girl, with Rossellini cast in the sexually screwy Rita-like image of noir suffering and betrayal. The concept actually shows it's first inklings, if in far less obviously oppositional terms, in Lynch's first film "Eraserhead". Mary, Henry's wife, seems like the plain Betty girl next door type, except that when the difficulties of being a mother to a horrible mutant baby make life a little too tough she abandons Henry and her child leaving Henry open to the temptations of the dark, sexy, slightly sinister Rita-ish woman who actually does live next door. Her face eerily emerges from darkness as she tells Henry, "I locked myself out of my apartment." In "Blue Velvet" it will be the daylight Dern who comes out of the darkness, suggesting an ambiguous underside to the niceness implied by Mary's leaving Henry, but connecting it to the sexy aura of Lynch's various dark girls. This bad girl dangerousness seems to be what so many of his innocenty male characters are secretly looking for, but are scared of finding.

Joseph Aisenberg said...

Comment Part two.

(sorry I published my previous comment so many times, weird mix up. Here, however, is the continuation of my comments. thanx)

Still, for all that's very good in "Mulholland Dr." it's not one of my favorite Lynch movies. Neither its characters or images really get under my skin the way some of the stuff in the earlier pictures did. To me this sleek expensive look his films developed during the nineties reminds me more of cinemax after dark thrillers than art; I much prefer the smudged industrial black and white of the earlier films. Plus I don't care about the lezzie action. I would have much preferred some lengthy scenes of the director shirless!

By the way, I like really in depth analysis like this better than abstract thematic takes, which I find hard to get into. Rather than sussing out what's there in the dramatic structure of a movie--how a film's look and story has been designed to make you feel certain things--most studies foist obvious ideological perspectives on the work. So keep on keepin' on is what I say, to be trite about it.