Okay, so finally - FINALLY - I sucked it up and watched Mulholland Drive.
It was funny actually: Two summers ago I made a list of required movies Glenn must see - mainly the classics like Singin' in the Rain, Annie Hall, Vertigo, etc. Well, one of the films I include (for good reason) is Sunset Boulevard - a FANTASTIC movie - Billy Wilder directed it, William Holden stars in it, and it deals with Hollywood and its corruptness - very ahead of its time for 1950. Anyhow, over the nice, long weekend we watched Sunset Blvd, then immediately followed it up with Mulholland Drive, which despite the Lynch film being really bizarre and over the top, it was an interesting companion piece to Sunset Blvd - at least thematically speaking. I'm pretty sure that's where the comparison ends. I mean, yes, David Lynch, he's weird. He likes to create very ridiculous scenarios or compose extremely disturbing frames and almost throw them in his viewers' faces. I liked Blue Velvet, and from what I've seen of the series, I've enjoyed Twin Peaks. Then Inland Empire totally threw me for a loop. Which, Mulholland Drive is no different. When the film ends, Lynch begs us to ask: Was it all a dream? Are we supposed to know what was "real" and what was "imagined"? Does anyone really know? Yes, I've learned that Lynch likes doubles - doppelgangers - I know he subscribes to the Polish school of filmmaking. But still, despite his creativity and interesting leaps, Mulholland Drive I just do not get. A slew of end of 2009 blogs named it the best film of the decade, but I'm not quite sure why. Does anyone really understand Lynch? Is there really someone out there who can explain what that weird thing behind the dumpster which ended up scaring to death that guy from Mad Men and LOST was and/or represented? Because I am confused. I should've taken that Lynch class when I had the chance! Oy!
It was funny actually: Two summers ago I made a list of required movies Glenn must see - mainly the classics like Singin' in the Rain, Annie Hall, Vertigo, etc. Well, one of the films I include (for good reason) is Sunset Boulevard - a FANTASTIC movie - Billy Wilder directed it, William Holden stars in it, and it deals with Hollywood and its corruptness - very ahead of its time for 1950. Anyhow, over the nice, long weekend we watched Sunset Blvd, then immediately followed it up with Mulholland Drive, which despite the Lynch film being really bizarre and over the top, it was an interesting companion piece to Sunset Blvd - at least thematically speaking. I'm pretty sure that's where the comparison ends. I mean, yes, David Lynch, he's weird. He likes to create very ridiculous scenarios or compose extremely disturbing frames and almost throw them in his viewers' faces. I liked Blue Velvet, and from what I've seen of the series, I've enjoyed Twin Peaks. Then Inland Empire totally threw me for a loop. Which, Mulholland Drive is no different. When the film ends, Lynch begs us to ask: Was it all a dream? Are we supposed to know what was "real" and what was "imagined"? Does anyone really know? Yes, I've learned that Lynch likes doubles - doppelgangers - I know he subscribes to the Polish school of filmmaking. But still, despite his creativity and interesting leaps, Mulholland Drive I just do not get. A slew of end of 2009 blogs named it the best film of the decade, but I'm not quite sure why. Does anyone really understand Lynch? Is there really someone out there who can explain what that weird thing behind the dumpster which ended up scaring to death that guy from Mad Men and LOST was and/or represented? Because I am confused. I should've taken that Lynch class when I had the chance! Oy!
2 comments:
Everyone knows "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" was the best movie of the decade. Duh.
You, of all people, would say that. I don't care that you've created a 7 story banner for "The Clone Wars." I'll take Mulholland Drive over the prequels anytime.
Post a Comment