I Watch "Mulholland Falls." Baby Jesus Cries. Then Shoots Himself.

Cafe Society
81

Then it should be equally objectionable to say “It’s good.”

Everybody has that authority, in equal measure. I have as much right to call a movie crap as you do to call it the most sublime experience ever recorded on celluloid, and we are both correct in precisely the same measure.

And I’m objecting to the objection: there’s nothing wrong with describing a subjective experience in absolute terms. It is, in fact, generally preferable, from a stylistic point of view: it makes for stronger rhetoric, and is more interesting to read.

Sure. I used to feel the same way. And excuse the implied insult, but then I grew up and learned to seperate who I was from what I liked. I am not defined by my interests, and so an insult to one of my interests is not an insult to me.

I don’t see a difference between the two. They are functionally the same statement.

82

Wait a minute. You presume I’m so stupid that I don’t recognize that “it’s crap” is an opinion, then claim that you’re the one entitled to feel insulted?

“It’s crap” and “I think it’s crap” are the same statement, except the former gives its audience credit for knowing that “I think” is implied in any statement that isn’t factual in nature. And unless you believe I’m literally proposing that bad film in question equals excrement, you know that I’m not pretending to be objective and factual. I’m being colorful, and assertive, but not insulting.

Of course, if I just say “it’s crap” I’m also not making an interesting argument, hence the more interesting followup, “Really? Why do you think it’s crap?”

83

Okay, you win. :smiley: (Although I think everyone is defined to some extent by their interests. What interests you is a reflection of your experience and is therefore tied up in your notion of self.)

Not to mention:

Those two chicks were totally doing it. :smiley:

84

Point taken. I did not mean to imply that you were stupid.

I guess that my main objection is that I feel that outside of my interpretations of film, which are just that, separate from actuality, art is ultimately neutral. Therefore any absolutes, “it’s good,” “it’s crap” are completely irrelevant and meaningless, as it is neither.

Agreed. As both are wrong, I suppose that there is no reason to object to either.

85

My point – and I suspect Miller would agree – is that in discussions about art, these statements aren’t really absolutes at all. They borrow the form of absolutes, but they’re really just opinions stated forcefully, and most people who use them and hear them understand that without it needing to be spelled out up front. Further discussion would likely reveal the reasons, nuances and caveats behind them. They’re sheep in wolves’ clothing.

Of course, there are people who believe that they are identifying inherent quality or the utter lack thereof. I don’t happen to think they’re right, and neither, apparently do you, but even then a bit of discussion should bring the difference of opinion to light.

86

No they aren’t.

Or it sounds like someone trying to arrogantly make an objective observation about something that is totally subjective.

Being literal is not the same thing as being objective.

87

So I dug this thread up not to resurrect all the various pissing contests, but to recant my earlier post (which I made without seeing the movie).

Lesbian sex scene(s): eh. Granted, I’m not their targeted audience, but I still don’t see what all the hub-bub was about. Definitely not the most memorable thing about the movie, so I don’t see why it was always the first thing that people mentioned.

Movie on the whole: Cool! I was expecting to hate it, or at least be completely unable to follow it. But I liked it quite a bit! I haven’t read the articles linked from the beginning of the thread, so I apologize if this has already been covered, but my take:

It’s about dreams & reality. Not just dreams in the “I was back in high school and realized I was naked” sense, although there was plenty of that, what with its being a David Lynch movie and all. But dreams in the sense of hopes and aspirations and desires, what you’re trying to achieve, what you’re building your life around. And not only the “sinister forces” that try to destroy your dreams, but the fact that the dreams aren’t real in the first place.

The version of Hollywood in the movie is a machine that not only destroys people, but absolutely crushes their dreams and even their identity. The movie doesn’t show Betty gradually losing her optimism; she gets sucked into the box suddenly and finds herself having lost everything, filled with anger and hatred, and she doesn’t even recognize who she is anymore. And we see that for every one who gets used up and destroyed by the “machine,” there’s another coming along to take her place.

It’s not air-tight or anything, but the ambiguity and the general nonsensical nature of the movie work in this case, because it’s more meaningful if you work out your own interpretation. I’m impressed to hear that it was originally supposed to be a TV pilot; I would’ve expected it to be even more disjointed, and I’m surprised that he managed to get a fairly coherent theme out of the whole thing.

It’s a damn sight better than Lost Highway, that’s for sure. Mulholland Drive is as linear as an ABC Afterschool Special compared to that nonsense.

And Naomi Watts was absolutely spectacular. That was just an amazing performance. It’s so cool to see an actor or actress in a movie who just gets it.

88

Glad to hear you liked it, SG. You really nailed on the head what makes the film so moving and tragic. Lynch’s style isn’t just an incoherent, non-linear bait & switch, but feeds directly into the sorrow and disillusionment of Betty, who acts as our surrogate in reflecting the seductive and insidious power the Dream Factory has over anyone who loves (and not just “appreciates”) the Movies.

I think very few films are “perfect” and I wouldn’t argue MDr. is, but that doesn’t stop it from being a masterpiece, IMHO.

89

Well, I don’t think any of Lynch’s movies are perfect, but I don’t get the impression that that’s what he’s going for. He seems to be attempting to take everything out of his head and put it up on the screen; not all of it’s going to work. But when it does work, it’s just brilliant – it’s like “distilled movie,” you don’t have to dig through plot or subtext; it’s an idea instilled directly into your brain.

The other thing I realized about Lynch’s movies, after watching this movie, is that he’s actually surprisingly sweet and traditionalist. He does “innocent” characters better than anyone else – Betty (and Rita, to some degree) in Mulholland Drive, Kyle Maclachlan and Laura Dern’s characters in Blue Velvet, Maddie Palmer and Lara Flynn Boyle’s characters in “Twin Peaks.” He’s not cold and distant – he doesn’t mock his characters for being naive, but he gives the impression that he’s right there with them. They’re genuinely nice and sweet, but not stupid, and they’re not caricatures. He has fun going along with them when their adventure is just starting out and they’re excited by the intrigue of it all; he’s not mocking them.

And their emotions are real – when Betty and Rita are watching the singer perform “Crying,” they’re genuinely moved and it’s still genuinely surprising to see that it was all just a recording, even after the M.C. had just given a long soliloquy about how everything was a recording and none of it was real. “No hay banda.”

There always seems to be a clear delineation between good and evil. His evil characters are compelling, but not at all sympathetic – they’re either cold and distant, or petty and venal; they are the ones who are over-the-top caricatures. When we see his innocent characters getting sucked into the evil world, it’s always sad but inevitable. It’s never a case of growing up and becoming more mature (although I guess Audrey Horne from “Twin Peaks” would qualify for that), and it’s never a case of “they got what was coming to them for being so naive.” Even in Wild at Heart, which I’d say is his most over-the-top played-for-laughs weirdness movie (it’s also my favorite of his movies), the characters aren’t just one-note jokes. They’re so earnest. Everything is so real to them.

I guess I’m more pretentious art-snob than I ever suspected. It’s just kind of surprising and heartening to me that with all the bitter, shallow faux-cynical and self-consciously ironic movies we’re drowning in, one of the most compassionate and sincere filmmakers is the one who has backwards-talking midgets, violent and depressing masturbation scenes, severed ears, assassins, and fatal car accidents.

90

Open- Shot of Citadel Of Doom.

Narrator-Within the Citadel Of Doom, a strange and shocking plan is about to revealed.

Cut to interior. The villains are seated as usual. Solomon Grundy is absent.

Sinestro-I wonder what he has to show us this time.

Black Manta-Remember when he unveiled his new secret weapon, the-really-big-rock-for-throwing ?
All chuckle.
Cheetah-How about when he discovered that new punching technique, thumb-goes-on-the-outside ?
All laugh.

Grundy enters, carrying a large object covered by a cloth. He sets the object on the floor and stands beside it.

Luthor-Well Grundy, what astounding thing do you have to show us this time?

Grundy-Grundy am show you . . . this!

Grundy pulls away the cloth. The object is a strange stone figure, parts of it are human, some are distorted and some are strange geometric shapes.

Reaction shot of the villains. They are stunned into open-mouthed silence.

Luthor recovers, pauses for a beat to think.

Luthor-What is this? Is it an artifact of great mystical power, like the monolith you found beneath the swamp?

Grundy-No

Luthor-What then?

Grundy-It am art!

Luthor-Art? You called a meeting for that?

Grundy becomes angry.

Grundy-This am important! Grundy been mad since Luthor design Citadel himself when Grundy want I M Pei. Grundy do much shopping before he find right statue.

Sinestro-You think that is a good statue?

Grundy-Sinestro am stuck in classical realism. This statue postmodern fusion.

Cheetah- Yeah, a fusion of junk and trash.

Grundy-Am not. Note influence of cubism. See am influence of German expressionism here. Statue am representational and am nonrepresentational. Look at brilliant use of negative space.

Gorilla Grodd- I . . . I never suspected you felt this way about art.

Grundy-Why you think Grundy dress this way?

Sinestro- Because those are the clothes you died in?

Grundy-Yes, but am more than that. Rotting suit represent effect of modern corporate culture on individual. Grundy am dead man in suit that am too tight. Just like joe salaryman. Swamp am dark reflection of business everywhere. Alligators am colleagues who will stab you in back to get ahead. Kudzu is out of control union. Owls am recruiters from competitors. Even Citadel headquarters am symbolic. Is hostile takeover by foreign business. My world am terrifying nightmare because real world am terrifying nightmare.

Reaction shot of stunned villains.

Grundy-Now Grundy must go. Have meeting with important man.

Luthor-Who?

Grundy-Am called (a pause as he tries to remember). Am called Godot!

Manta-Isn’t that-

Luthor cuts him off.

Luthor-I believe it is almost sunset. You better hurry, Grundy.

Cut to exterior, Hall Of Justice.

Narrator-Meanwhile, in the Hall Of Justice.

A confused looking Samurai talks to the other Superfriends.

Samurai-But . . . Wait a . . . This isn’t all some kind of kabuki performance? But, the elaborate and stylized costumes? The dramatic and precise poses and gestures? The pauses for dramatic speeches delivered with strange inflections? The repetitive battles? The scripted nature of our battles?

Narrator-Stay tuned as we examine the life of Superman as a Greek tragedy. But now, a word from our sponsors!

91

DocCathode, when you die, would you mind terribly if I preserved your brain in a bell jar? Genius like that needs to be kept for future generations to study.

92

ROFL!!! :smiley: