After watching "Mulholland Drive" I was left with nothing
but questions. This is often the case with exceptionally well constructed
films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Unfortunately, more
often than not, this turns out to be the case with films that lack
a sense of direction or purpose. In the case of "Mulholland Drive"
it quickly becomes obvious that it belongs with the constituents of
the latter, rather than the former.
"Mulholland Drive" has to be one of the strangest beasts
of a movie that I have ever seen, and I don’t mean that in a
good way. The first half hour borders on being laughably bad with
dialogue that sounds as if it was lifted from the most hapless of
soap operas. The next hour is what truly troubled me about the film.
Not because it was bad, but because it was so good.
Within that hour it became a richly compelling experience that rivals
the best the year 2001 has had to offer. You’ve got a woman with
amnesia and her culture shocked roommate of sorts, attempting to piece
together the amnesiac’s past, which apparently involves a purse
full of money, a wheelchair bound dwarf (No, his name isn’t Gimli.),
and a car accident. This is intriguing subject matter that does not
disappoint. That is, until the final hour when, in typical Lynch fashion,
it turns into a none to subtle mindfuck with absolutely no purpose
other than to confuse and alienate its audience. At first it’s
not so bad. It makes the viewer question whether what they just saw
was a dream sequence, or possibly what they are currently viewing
is the inner workings of a jilted lover. This would be all fine and
good, but Lynch can’t leave it alone. He has to add a bunch of
pomp and circumstance to the proceedings, which does nothing more
than distort an already muddy picture.
In writing this review I think I have figured out the meaning behind
this film, but I won’t share it so as not to spoil a possible
viewing you might choose to undertake in the future. The problem with
the meaning that I have interpreted, which I’m sure is incorrect,
is that I only used about 80% of the film, whereas for any true meaning
to be derived it should be supported 100% by the film’s content.
The reason this happens is due to something called David Lynch. He
is easily the most pretentious director I have ever come across in
my time watching film. Just when things seem to be coming together
he throws in a bunch of flashy non-related nonsense that pisses me
off when it should be challenging me. This, by the way, is coming
from someone who enjoys both flashy filmmaking and mindfuck movies
as much as any other form of cinema. I site my love of “Vanilla
Sky” as well as all things Brian De Palma as prime examples
of this.
It’s a shame that the film was lacking any sense of direction,
because the actors truly seemed to be giving it their all. Despite
some incredibly flimsy dialogue at the film’s outset Naomi Watts
still managed to turn in one of the years more memorable female performances
in the role of the culture shocked roommate Betty Elms. She makes
every moment come off as being so natural that you even manage to
buy some of the ham fisted dialogue, she is forced to utter, as the
sort of stuff that a naïve acting hopeful, arriving in Los Angeles
for the first time, would say. The other performance of note is that
of Lara Harring as the amnesiac woman Rita. She doesn’t manage
to offer up the same level of genuineness that her costar does, but
she still manages to turn in a finely crafted performance in what
is definitely a difficult role to portray.
Now for those questions I mentioned earlier. These really gnawed at
me and I feel I should lay them out for you so you know what you will
be faced with if you choose to watch this movie despite my reservations
about you spending your money in such a silly manner. What now follows
is the questions followed by what I last saw regarding it during the
film.
1. What was up with the wheelchair
bound dwarf?
? All I knew about this guy was
that he sat in the middle of a room with, I believe, green carpet,
and a glass wall that people, who seemed to have a great deal of respect
from him, could speak to him through. Sounds like the sort of thing
you’d like to know more about doesn’t it? Well tough, because
that’s all the more you ever get to find out.
2. What happened to Robert Forster?
? He shows up as a police investigator
at the car crash that opens the movie, utters some awful dialogue
and then leaves a minute later and is never seen or heard from again.
I think his disappearance supports my theory about the film’s
meaning, but still it pissed me off because I wanted to see more of
this guy.
3. What was the deal with Dan
Hedaya’s eyes?
? A short ways into the movie
he shows up as a lawyer/agent of some sort that has a deal to make
that apparently cannot be refused. I think it was on behalf of the
dwarf, but I can’t be sure. The thing is, for his whopping five
minutes of screen time, we get Dan Hedaya staring downward at a table
that he pushes papers across. I wanted to know what that was all about,
but that was left unresolved as well.
4. Is there something important
about espresso that I don’t know about?
? During the same meeting that
Hedaya was busy blindly passing offers out at, there is a dude who
apparently enjoys a fine espresso. So much so that the people he is
meeting with have it made special for him whenever he is around. Problem
is, he spits the stuff out on a napkin when he drinks it, which is
never a good sign. The film dwells on this long enough that I am forced
to ponder the intricacies of a fine espresso. I don’t think there
is, but if I’m missing something be sure and let me know.
5. We’ve got lesbians!!!
But why?
? I am not complaining about the
simultaneous nakedness of two of the most gorgeous creatures to share
the screen in some time, but where were the clues, that should have
been laced throughout the film, to at least hint that things were
going to head in this direction at some point. Two hot chicks are
trying to solve a mystery and then all of a sudden they hop in the
sack together. Once again, nothing wrong with the nakedness, but it
would be nice if it was at least hinted at.
6.
What was the significance of the spontaneous Spanish speaking by a
lesbian and blue haired gypsy wannabe near the end of the film?
?
Out of nowhere we suddenly have “silencio” becoming the
word of choice for people far and near, whether they be slumbering
lesbians or balcony inhabiting blue haired gypsy wannabes. I am still
uncertain of what this nonsense was all about. More than likely it
was just Lynch being a megalomaniacal retard again, but I guess that’s
open to interpretation.
I’m sure I had other questions after watching this film, but
I can’t remember what they were, nor do I care to.
For the majority of its runtime "Mulholland Drive" suffers
from ridiculous dialogue and the self righteous meddling of its director.
Unfortunately, the film is not a complete piece of crap due to the
middle hour that borders on brilliance before falling prey to the
convoluted happenstance that plagues the film during its final hour.
Lynch is a good director with good ideas. It’s just a shame that
he seems to be inept when it comes to bringing a good idea to fruition.
"Mulholland Drive" leaves the viewer with many unresolved
questions that frustrate, rather than inspire making it yet another
in a long line of films that demonstrate the ineptitude of David Lynch
as a filmmaker.
