Deconstructing Mulholland Drive

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

Post Reply
User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Deconstructing Mulholland Drive

Post by e_dog » October 21st, 2005, 3:54 pm

Mulholland Drive is a subtle postmodern triumph – the sublimely bad film. Although you probably didn’t think it possible, it is better than the Batman sequels.

It is thanks to the marvelous hype about the film and its maker that the work is redeemed. One wonders whether the viewer's attention would not hopelessly succomb to boredom during the first hour or so were it not for the assurance by critics and fans that David Lynch is a genius. But, over the course of the film, it is actually the screen presence of the lead actress that truly captivates.

This critic foresees the possibility of a re-make of the original, retaining only the essential elements of Naomi Watts wondering around L.A. in variously sexy outfits and poses. call it, the Naomi Watts Spectacle. instead, of (dis)solving a murder?/suicide?/identity-crisis? she would simply go shopping at a supermarket. and lesbians love scenes, let's not forget that.

But despite appearances, Mulholland Drive is more than sexploitation of its actresses. after all, that wouldn't be postmodern. it is an ironic sexploitation of its actresses. It plays with a dialectic of innocence and violence.

the gesture of irony -- which presumably (or under charitable interpretation) explains the over-decorated settings and overdone make-up, the false smiles and, with some exceptions, bad acting -- is not the movie's only postmodern feature. (an exception to the rule of bad acting is the incredible performance by the man who plays a disturbed dreamer in the early diner scene, whose slightest change in physiognomy is sufficient to send shivers down one’s spine; this tense scene, aside from introducing the monster-bum, does not find any resolution in the knotted plot, if indeed the deux ex machina of arbitrariness can be called a “resolution.”) the link of old and new styles, the juxtaposition of ultramodern and old-time cinematic styles and characters are integral to its overall feel.

It is its own genre, a kind of surrealism noir -- the synthesis of film noir with surrealism.

But, despite the promise of such a genre-space, the surrealism of the film strikes one as rather tame in comparison to the imaginative classics of Cocteau, Dali and Bunuel, the greats of surrealist cinematic experiments. this is a pseudo-surrealism, a music video or role-playing video game, except less unpredictable.

I should add, by way of full disclosure, that this critic viewed the film while completely sober, without any drugs except some lingering traces of caffeine. i take it that a stoner would undoubtedly be able to decipher an enigmatically encrypted meaning to the plottedly un-plot of the story and its somewhat cheesy, hamfisted use of psychedelic symbols like the lock-and-key device, the creepy miniaturized old couple, the monster-bum, the cowboy's admonitions and dis/appearance. personally, i imagine one would find more 'trippy' yet significant stuff in the Bible or in dream interpretations by Carl Jung.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

mtmynd
Posts: 7752
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 8:54 pm
Location: El Paso

Post by mtmynd » October 22nd, 2005, 6:48 pm

I was extremely bored with the movie. I don't (or am unable) to recall anything about the movie. Disappointment was my only reward for sitting thru it.

Thanks for the reminder.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests