Quote:
|
Originally Posted by After a brisk nap
No, you've got it the wrong way around.
Mulholland Dr. is Lynch-lite. The abrasive elements of his vision have been toned way down, and it comes with a handy explanation to ensure that any unsettling elements can be dismissed by the viewer. It is easily one of his least challenging films, which is of course why it has achieved so much mainstream success.
In Lost Highway, Lynch is at the top of his game, following his uncompromising vision like in Eraserhead or Blue Velvet. It makes no pretense of the mystical or irrational being under control by the characters, the viewer, or even the director. It is unpleasant, it is unsafe, it doesn't yield to analysis. Parts of the film are going off in every direction. Even the best explanations available remain wholly unsatisfactory. It's a film that doesn't let you go.
Lynch stiched Mulholland Dr. together as a film by recycling the main plot devices from Lost Highway, and of course, they're far more stale the second time around. The film is buoyed by a marvellous performance by Naomi Watts, Lynch's confident cinematography, and the best Angelo Badalamenti score since Twin Peaks, but it remains a lightweight, minor work.
Lynch may be weird for the sake of being weird; but he's weird for the sake of being weird for a reason.
|
A film being "challenging" because it makes no sense isn't quite fair and deserves a mere fraction of the credit you give it. Mulholland Dr. IS challenging for most viewers. It's a very visual film, nothing is spelled out for the viewer, but the hints are there in the images. Sense can be made of this picture, meaning can be pieced together. It has something to say, it has a point. Lost Highway did not. As you said, "Parts of the film are going off in every direction. Even the best explanations available remain wholly unsatisfactory." That is the sign of a film that has nothing to say and no clear direction. For you, perhaps a virtue. For me, no thanks. Lost Highway is the minor work of the two.
