I absolutely have no problem with this choice; it’s certainly in my top 5 of this “century”. I also think it’s Lynch’s best, which is high praise indeed. I think it’s sly, very funny, incredibly resourceful (given that it originated as a failed TV pilot), coldly subversive and deeply moving.
But I understand why people don’t like it or claim to not “get” it. It’s a funhouse, alternately thrilling and terrifying, but great art doesn’t have to follow a certain structure or make complete sense. It’s a high-wire act and I love the film a great deal. And better a provocative, controversial choice than a safer, more predictable one.
I agree with the critics who chose Mulholland Drive.
Though disagreeing with glowacks on the merits of MD, I was interested in the mention of Inception:
For me, both MD and Inception are brilliant dissections of the phenomenon of guilt–not just garden-variety guilt, but the soul-destroying variety. Both films manage to cunningly disguise the message so that it can get through–which is the task of art. We humans are highly skilled at avoiding taking in or recognizing ideas which would disturb our complacent, self-serving beliefs. It takes a work of genius to get past our own defenses.
The fact (mentioned up-thread) that MD was created to be a television series, and yet ended up a perfectly-realized 2 1/2 hour movie, just adds to the wonder of the thing.
Yeah, but what is worse for me is that correcting the inits is the SOLE reason I went in to edit! :smack: Not sure what I had before - maybe I had it right the first time, and incorrected it. Or - hey - maybe I was being all subtle and meta, and actually created the best post of the century! Don’t blame ME just because your puny minds can’t comprehend my brilliance!
It’s one thing to say you don’t think the movie is coherent. It’s quite another to say you don’t think its coherent and that therefore every critic that does is just scared to admit they do not understand it.
Take a look at the +10,000 word essay Shalmanese linked to from Film Critic Hulk. Was that written because the writer doesn’t want to admit he doesn’t understand the film? That’s why he spent weeks writing the essay? Because unless you love MD, you cannot be a serious film critic?
Some would think that the more logical conclusion would be that the professional film critics who spend their lives thinking and writing about films would be in the best position to determine whether or not a film is coherent. But now we know that is not the case because they are all just scared and all of them made up everything they wrote about MD.
How is that supposed to work though? What about the first film critic to like MD? There wasn’t anyone else who liked the movie, so how would pretending to like MD help make him look like a legitimate critic? The first five critics to like MD? They are still in the minority. Can we at least concede that at some point there was a sizable number of critics who were still in the minority and therefore had sincere feelings about MD?
Critics watch a lot of movies, and not that many movies are very good, and not many are outside the typical formulas, so it’s not surprising they’ll like something different and well made. I don’t know if it’s the best of the decade, I’d have to go look up all the other films from that period, but it is certainly more of a work of art than any I can think of.
I’ve never seen “Mulholland Drive,” but have seen enough David Lynch movies to know that he’s not my cup of tea, and that I’m not giving him any more chances.
The most maddening thing about this movie is that the DVD has NO chapter breaks, apparently an “artistic” decision by Lynch himself. To each his own I suppose, but it does make it incredibly tedious to fast-forward 1h40m to the part of the movie worth watching.
Substitute “cup of tea” with “laughably bad” and I’m right there with you. I like tea. This is coming from someone who had an Eraserhead t-shirt in high school. Then I grew up.
There are many great scenes and unusual scenes in this film, and I like the implied scathing criticism of Hollywood culture. The interweaved dream and reality and flashback sequences make for an interesting non-linear plot.
That ending with the miniature elderly people crawling under the apartment door then become full size chasing Naomi Watts’ character into her room…why that ending?
Some interesting insights in that revue. I’m not quite sure why he spells ‘segue’ as ‘SEQUEWAY’ though. At least I think that is the word that he was trying to use. It could have used some other editing too.
After looking at the wall of capital letters, I copied it into Word and changed the capitalization. I would have gone berserk otherwise.
[spoiler]The whole tale is the story of Diane’s unstable mind. The main part is her crazy dream of how Hollywood should have worked out, almost. As Betty, she would have been a success, but behind the scenes manipulations interfered. After opening the box, we get a somewhat better idea of Diane’s failed life in Hollywood and her descent into madness. The hallucinations are just that, hallucinations. One cannot expect there to a rational explanation. Driven over the edge by them, she kills herself. It doesn’t matter what crazy stuff she saw, that it was crazy stuff is the important thing.
Note that the old couple (as well as some other minor characters) have some significance to Diane. As Betty, she exited the airport with them, full of dreams and all that. But note they seem to be laughing at her as they leave. This presumably reflects Diane’s paranoia about people not being who they seem to be. They form the beginning of her madness story arc. And are there at the end in the ghostly images in the closing.
Crazy people fixate on strange stuff. Throw in some paranoia and who knows what they might create a story about.[/spoiler]
Well, as if I needed another reason to never pay attention to the critics. I saw it. It was terrible. The fanboys all told me “you just don’t get it”. I’m ok with that since I’m not watching that turgid pile of dung again.
Haven’t seen MD, but I couldn’t find Limitless (2011) on any of those critics’ lists, which is an appalling oversight. Probably my favorite movie since 2000.
One of my favorites. I watched it the first time and had no idea what the hell it was about but I wanted to understand so I started digging online. I found a couple really detailed explanations (interpretations may be a better word) and then watched it again. I watch it about once a year.
