 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Why does one film win higher praise than the other? Roger Ebert, for example, gives one four stars and the other two stars. They're both similar to me, maybe even companion pieces. I would think that a review of one could be read for the other. Admittedly, there are two very hot scenes in Mulholland Drive.
Follow Ups:
Eraserhead and Blue Velvet are also great fun. Mulholland is a brain twister, but quite original, and it works, IMO.
I think it's a weak film. Lynch certainly knows how to make dramas, and colorful pieces out of apparently ordinary stories. Perhaps, Mulholand Drive is too complicated for me, but for me it's just a more or less puzzle, without a point, or motive . It's unlike Memento, Pulp Fiction, or The Usual Suspect, whose complex structures seem to be an attempt at explaining something; they have motives, and therefore their presentations are necessarily and naturally complex. All Mulholand Drive presents is simply a puzzle, with dramatic effects, and that's all. Its many possible interpretations exist not because the many different philosophies and perceptions of different viewers, but because of its inherent obscurity -- a lack of motive, a deserved topic to be explored in a film.
But I disagree it's "weak".Mulholland Drive's certainly non-linear. Lynch isn't very interested in exploring straight forward narrative - which all the above films are, even though they are vriously comlex. (Pulp Fiction only "seems" complex, althbough it is ingenious...and busy. It's still pretty straightforward, merely interweaving time frames. Memento is multilayered but still linear, just backwards, and lol.)
Lynch has done conventional films - The Straight Story, The Elephant Man - but his heart's not really in that style. Blue Velvet & Mulholland Drive are into the dark side of human conscious and subconscious, exploring a level where linear storytelling will not suffice. If you must have plot and objectivity, better stay away from Lunch's mythopoeic cinematic musings.
Yes, "weak" is probably a poor choice. Actually, I like his works, and I think they, MD and Blue Velvet in particular, are somewhat entertaining. But that's all. For me, a good film should say something such as the dark side of human conscious and subconscious, which is easier to say than do. But it's not just about saying; its about showing and exploring convincingly, and I don't see that in Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. All I see is a psycho with strange sexual desires in BV, and a vague display of dreams in MD. Give me some time, I'll come up with a crazier psycho and even more twysted sequence of events.What I don't see is why or what motives?. Done well, it connects and convinces much more effectively than fictional reports. It's not just about the plot, or objectivity, or non-linearity. Its like when Angelina Jolie takes slow-motioned showers in Tomb Raider as an attempt of exploring sensuality. That is just saying, and not showing and exploring which requires more thoughts and efforts.
Another thing is about simplicity. There are things that lend themselves to complex manifestations and fancy techniques; others don't. Although Lynch's fans may characterize him that way, but I don't think he's like Tarantino who beats up the arts by showing the same card tricks to every guest to his house.
Of course, there's no hard rules in making arts; its a walk along the borderline, and it boils down personal tastes. Personally, MD is just a fancy crossword puzzle, which is still better than alot of what is out there.
Yes, "weak" is probably a poor choice. Actually, I like his works, and I think they, MD and Blue Velvet in particular, are somewhat entertaining. But that's all. For me, a good film should say something such as the dark side of human conscious and subconscious , which is easier to say than do. But it's not just about saying ; its about showing and exploring convincingly , and I don't see that in Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. All I see is a psycho with strange sexual desires in BV, and a vague display of dreams in MD. Give me some time, I'll come up with a crazier psycho and even more twysted sequence of events.What I don't see is why or what motives? . Done well, it connects and convinces much more effectively than fictional reports. It's not just about the plot, or objectivity, or non-linearity. Its like when Angelina Jolie takes slow-motioned showers in Tomb Raider as an attempt of exploring sensuality. That is just saying , and not showing and exploring which requires more thoughts and efforts.
Another thing is about simplicity. There are things that lend themselves to complex manifestations and fancy techniques; others don't. Although Lynch's fans may characterize him that way, but I don't think he's like Tarantino who beats up the arts by showing the same card tricks to every guest to his house.
Of course, there's no hard rules in making arts; its a walk along the borderline, and it boils down personal tastes. Personally, MD is just a fancy crossword puzzle, which is still better than alot of what is out there.
Yes, "weak" is probably a poor choice. Actually, I like his works, and I think they, MD and Blue Velvet in particular, are somewhat entertaining. But that's all. For me, a good film should say something such as the dark side of human conscious and subconscious , which is easier to say than do. But it's not just about saying ; its about showing and exploring convincingly , and I don't see that in Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. All I see is a psycho with strange sexual desires in BV, and a vague display of dreams in MD. Give me some time, I'll come up with a crazier psycho and even more twysted sequence of events.What I don't see is why or what motives? . Done well, it connects and convinces much more effectively than fictional reports. It's not just about the plot, or objectivity, or non-linearity. Its like when Angelina Jolie takes slow-motioned showers in Tomb Raider as an attempt of exploring sensuality. That is just saying , and not showing and exploring which requires more thoughts and efforts.
Another thing is about simplicity. There are things that lend themselves to complex manifestations and fancy techniques; others don't. Although Lynch's fans may characterize him that way, but I don't think he's like Tarantino who beats up the arts by showing the same card tricks to every guest to his house.
Of course, there's no hard rules in making arts; its a walk along the borderline, and it boils down personal tastes. Personally, MD is just a fancy crossword puzzle, which is still better than alot of what is out there.
Read the number of films he gives high marks to; he's on the old payola.
...he sure likes many more films than I do.I pay little or no attention to Ebert and even less to Roeper (who seems more interested in feeding his ego than offering cogent film analysis.)
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I think Mulholland Drive is brilliant and great (non-linear) fun. I've been a David Lynch fan since Eraserhead. You may think it's garbage but I think Dave's back on form.
See ya at the movies!
Better, maybe than BV. But he think he was a two trick pony.
Lost Highway is perhaps a bit underrated. Same territory, but LH less successfully plays out similar obsessions and dream states than Mullholland Drive. MH to me is a much more compelling piece of cinema, despite (maybe because of) all the peculiariaties of its genesis. (It was a rejected TV pilot, production stopped and then restarted as a feature film.) The decadence and delusion of Hollywood dovetails quite fascinatingly with the characters' delusions and deceptions (kinda like The Player on LSD) and its dramtic structure builds more intensity than LH. Lost Highway fizzles around 2/3 the way through for me and never recaptures momentum.I'd say Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive are Lynch's best films, along with The Elephant Man.
The best analysis of MH I've seen is Jonathan Valin's in TPV. Excellent analysis that I won't repeat here. But if you're curious what Lynch was up to in MH , read JV's DVD review - it's really quite good.
...companion publication to The Absolute Sound (TAS). TPV has excellent DVD reviews. Would you believe Harry Pearson loves Dark City???? I'm currently enjoying TPV more than TAS, especially since that mag's makeover.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
