Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Exclusively reserved for discussion regarding David Lynch's 'Mulholland Dr.'
User avatar
blu
 
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Location: Manchester, UK

Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby blu » 09 Sep 2012

Blimey.

I just read an essay/article on MD that, after spending 11,000 words talking about what's going on in the actual film, concludes with one of the best bits of writing I've ever read explaining just why MD is so bloody good, and relevant. Link follows the below extract. The 11,000 words that precede this section will not necessarily teach much new to anyone who's spent time discussing it, but I'd suggest you give the whole thing a read anyway.

Maybe an "MD reading links" thread would be a good idea, so I may rename this thread, but for now just read this. It's absolutely bloody brilliant.

PART 5 - SYMBIOSIS

Now that's about 11,000 words on an interpretation of one movie.

... Hulk acknowledge that may seem a tad excessive.

One person on Twitter even commented that having to write a column at that length to just understand a movie is precisely why they wouldn't want to watch it in the first place. But Hulk hope you might disagree with that line of thinking.

For one, the movie is still so compelling on a visceral level that you can get involved in it without "getting it." The first time Hulk watched the movie Hulk certainly didn't get all of it. It wasn't until a little reflection afterward where Hulk thought long and hard about the camera delving into the blue box and the difference of the last 20 minutes, that the whole dream thing really started to click. And then? All it really took was a second watch to piece it all together. So it's just two watches without writing anything down. That's it.

And for two, Hulk totally didn't need to write a column this length. Hulk could have simply said "the first two hours is a dream based on the woman's life in the last 20 minutes" and let you go on your way. What's remarkable is that it's not necessary to understand it, but that it simply allows for it. Isn't that kind of incredible? Heck, Hulk had so much fun finally writing all this shit down. It just lived in Hulk's head and in conversations for years. There's just so much great stuff to mine. And even with about 28 pages of notes, Hulk still felt like Hulk missed stuff.

And isn't that great? It's not like Hulk is arguing all movies have to be like Mulholland Drive, but really, society isn't allowed to have a few of them like this? Why does their existence somehow threaten the fabric of the universe? Please. This film is a joy to have in our lives. And even then it's not like Hulk watches it these days to mine for data (Hulk think this was Hulk's 11th time watching it?) Usually Hulk just enjoys the visceral quality on display, because it's probably the film's best aspect. It's so unnerving and emotional. It's the reason 11,000 words on symbology actually freaking work!

Hulk laugh... But if you did stick around for all 11000+ words, then Hulk commend you. Doesn't it all come together to paint an incredible picture of the psyche of guilt and displacement? The ideas of what we want from people and what we don't want? The truths we face about ourselves and the feelings we bury? Hulk challenge you to name one character you feel you "know" better than Diane Selwyn? We've gotten to see every crevice of her mind.

But Hulk also realize that it is wholly naive of Hulk, especially given the principals of semiotics, to say that Hulk has "cracked it." Hulk just feel rather confident about the ideas put forth with this film.

It's about stories, movies and dreams and how really they are all the same thing. Look how often they serve the same exact function. We always seem to get lost in them. They can operate as fantasy and displacement. They can reflect our wants, needs, and desires. But they can also provide us with catharsis and articulation. Even with its tragic elements, ultimately it's a beautiful film with a beautiful message about how we relate to the world.

But believe it or not the purpose of writing this column is not about merely cracking Mulholland Drive. Or even slobbering all over its genius.

Hulk think this column is about how we watch movies as a culture.

If there is any larger thing that Hulk wants you to take away from the details in this interpretation it's this: we should do this with every single movie.

Hulk not kidding. Hulk watches all kinds of films with the same level of attention. It has nothing to do with "difficulty" or some movies being mind-fucks. Or having complicated plots. Again, Hulk usually needs a second watch with those just as much as you.

No, what Hulk is talking about here is a constant state of awareness. A state of questioning what you are seeing. It doesn't matter what genre or audience, just ask the most simple questions: why is this character doing this? What do they want? What do they need? What is their psyche? How do these people relate to each other? Is that something that person would do? Is that not something they would do? If they're doing it, why? How does this all makes sense? What does the movie itself think about these characters?

Because good movies ask and then articulate these very same questions. Really. Every. Single. Good. Movie. This is how the psychology of cinema operates. It is how they are understood and become resonant. It is how we become invested. It is how we care.

Now... There are some that claim this process of "being aware" somehow ruins movies. That you are therefore "over-thinking" and not enjoying it.

Hulk politely calls bullshit.

It is not over-thinking it. It is just doing both. Every single puny human being has the ability to dual-process with an emotion and a thought. Every. Single. Person. And when those two line up in unison we are become involved in what we are seeing. We are being present.

Even the most grand, popular blockbuster does this. Movies like jaws do this. They combine character motivation and tension and action. They have everything about their characters and actions make sense, so that we don't have to let our brains stop us. It simply makes the visceral experience work even better.

There is no real validity to "turning your brain off" argument. That's purely an excuse to give a pass to something one knows is bad. And it's an even bigger lie because the best popcorn movies can actually turn your brain on.

We all truly have the capacity to think and enjoy. We do it constantly without being aware of it. Everyone. The thing we get hung up on is not the ability to understand, but simply the ability to articulate it.

And Hulk fully admit, the ability to read and articulate character motivation? Yeah that takes a little work and practice. But think of how one learns a language. For so long you spend time processing how you hear a language, until at a certain point, you can simply process it quickly enough to converse. And learning to understand the language of cinema is the same exact thing.

And we all have the ability to do it. If you're reading this website then there's a good chance you do it often. Cinema lovers learn that there is nothing more perfect in this world that watch to watch a film with mind, body and soul in unison.

And that's why a film like Mulholland Drive matters. It is simply one of the most interesting, thematically-rich, cerebrally-challenging, yet still emotional and visceral movies ever made.

It's a true gift of cinema.

<3 Hulk


Read me >> Film Crit Hulk Smash: HULK VS. THE GENIUS OF MULHOLLAND DRIVE

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 09 Sep 2012

that's the column that led me down my rabbit hole of over-thinking it. (my comments are in the comments section :D )

i can't write praise better than hulk does, but i think hulk barely gets what's going on in the movie. he was recently on the golden briefcase podcast providing the same overview. anyway, that's all it really is, an overview for those who don't know what's going on when they watch it the first time. they say "wow, what was that?", then they read the column and think Hulk's a genius for pointing out something obvious like the first shot of the dreamer's head hitting the pillow. anyone will notice that upon multiple viewings.

hope you didn't mind the jab where Hulk politely says undue extrapolation leads to undermining the core themes of the movie. that was way at the beginning of the column. not sure if that's true. the core theme of the movie is guilt, and most theories touch on that no matter how discursive.

here's the link to the golden briefcase podcast.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/tgb-breakdown-ep-7-lynchs-mulholland-dr-guest-film-crit-hulk/

the dude calls himself Banner when he's not Hulk.

User avatar
blu
 
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby blu » 09 Sep 2012

I agree that the 11,000 words are really an elaboration on the "classical theory" and don't really touch the sides, so to speak. However I do think it's maybe better than the Salon article as a starting point (I'd have to go back and read that again to draw a proper comparison). But the real gold for me is in the last few paras I quoted. Not just the praise, but perhaps particularly this stuff:

But believe it or not the purpose of writing this column is not about merely cracking Mulholland Drive. Or even slobbering all over its genius.

Hulk think this column is about how we watch movies as a culture.

If there is any larger thing that Hulk wants you to take away from the details in this interpretation it's this: we should do this with every single movie.

Hulk not kidding. Hulk watches all kinds of films with the same level of attention. It has nothing to do with "difficulty" or some movies being mind-fucks. Or having complicated plots. Again, Hulk usually needs a second watch with those just as much as you.

No, what Hulk is talking about here is a constant state of awareness. A state of questioning what you are seeing. It doesn't matter what genre or audience, just ask the most simple questions: why is this character doing this? What do they want? What do they need? What is their psyche? How do these people relate to each other? Is that something that person would do? Is that not something they would do? If they're doing it, why? How does this all makes sense? What does the movie itself think about these characters?

Because good movies ask and then articulate these very same questions. Really. Every. Single. Good. Movie. This is how the psychology of cinema operates. It is how they are understood and become resonant. It is how we become invested. It is how we care.


I don't think I've seen that concept set out quite as well as it is here, because to a degree, this is what MD has done for me. I pick up on things now in films that pre-MD I wouldn't have had a chance of catching. I appreciate what's going on in front of me so much more because of MD, whatever the film I'm watching.

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 09 Sep 2012

yes. Lynch teaches you how to watch movies, and Hulk is right to point that out.

User avatar
KyleOrKyla
 
Posts: 36
Joined: 01 May 2011
Location: New England

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby KyleOrKyla » 09 Sep 2012

I, myself, am partial to this sub-excerpt:

FOR ONE, THE MOVIE IS STILL SO COMPELLING ON A VISCERAL LEVEL THAT YOU CAN GET INVOLVED IN IT WITHOUT "GETTING IT." THE FIRST TIME HULK WATCHED THE MOVIE HULK CERTAINLY DIDN'T GET ALL OF IT. IT WASN'T UNTIL A LITTLE REFLECTION AFTERWARD WHERE HULK THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THE CAMERA DELVING INTO THE BLUE BOX AND THE DIFFERENCE OF THE LAST 20 MINUTES, THAT THE WHOLE DREAM THING REALLY STARTED TO CLICK. AND THEN? ALL IT REALLY TOOK WAS A SECOND WATCH TO PIECE IT ALL TOGETHER. SO IT'S JUST TWO WATCHES WITHOUT WRITING ANYTHING DOWN. THAT'S IT.

[ ... ]

HECK, HULK HAD SO MUCH FUN FINALLY WRITING ALL THIS SHIT DOWN. IT JUST LIVED IN HULK'S HEAD AND IN CONVERSATIONS FOR YEARS. THERE'S JUST SO MUCH GREAT STUFF TO MINE. AND EVEN WITH ABOUT 28 PAGES OF NOTES, HULK STILL FELT LIKE HULK MISSED STUFF.

AND ISN'T THAT GREAT? IT'S NOT LIKE HULK IS ARGUING ALL MOVIES HAVE TO BE LIKE MULHOLLAND DRIVE, BUT REALLY, SOCIETY ISN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE A FEW OF THEM LIKE THIS? WHY DOES THEIR EXISTENCE SOMEHOW THREATEN THE FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE? PLEASE. THIS FILM IS A JOY TO HAVE IN OUR LIVES.

[ ... ]

HULK CHALLENGE YOU TO NAME ONE CHARACTER YOU FEEL YOU "KNOW" BETTER THAN DIANE SELWIN? WE'VE GOTTEN TO SEE EVERY CREVICE OF HER MIND.
ArtGumshoe.com ~ a doodle comic which will eventually contain art gumshoes.

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 09 Sep 2012

yes. the movie still works viscerally even when you don't understand it.

Kind of like a sexy, moody, and manic drepressive koyanisqatsi. (come to think of it koyanisqatsi wasn't very upbeat either.)

Hulk just isn't that brilliant.

Yes. Lynch teaches you how to look at movies.

Yes. MD works viscerally even when you don't understand it.

Others point out those same things and it's not brilliant. So the obvious question is why is it brilliant when Hulk points it out? Who knows. Maybe it's the all caps people love.

User avatar
blu
 
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby blu » 10 Sep 2012

Well. For me, this is the first thing I've ever read on that site - I stumbled across it by accident whilst looking for something else entirely, so it's certainly not the fact that it's written by him that I stuck a "brilliant" label on it. I've never heard of the guy before so coming at it totally objectively and have no idea what the rest of his writing looks or reads like.

What really snagged me was that I've been reading, writing and thinking about MD for 10 years now and it's the first time that I've read those ideas in the extract I posted expressed quite so coherently and passionately. Perhaps I've missed some other bits of writing which do the same thing. If so, please do go ahead and signpost me to them. Not being glib, I enjoy reading about this film so would be grateful.

I don't really want to get into semantics, but brilliance is not always about originality, and in relation to creative works (including critical writing) it naturally is subjective. A lot of what he wrote in that final part tends to be stuff that's intuited a bit, so I was impressed with his ability to bash it out quite simply and straightforwardly. It obviously connected with my own views on a personal level too, so yeah, I really enjoyed what he did.

I dunno. You sound a bit grouchy about this guy. Am I missing something?

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 10 Sep 2012

I guess the brilliance is subjective so the best way to express it is with examples.

these two links, for me, are brilliant:
http://www.mulholland-drive.net/studies/studies.htm
http://www.mulholland-drive.net/cast/cast.htm
those two links, even in their messy sort of hodge podge way are brilliant because despite the informality of the information collected, they display information about the movie that I did not know before I found those two links. an abundance..

now, in contrast, I did not know anything more about the movie after reading Hulk's essay. even after 11,000 words, (and he calls Aunt Ruth "Aunt Rose") even if you like the way he "bash[ed] it out quite simply and straightforwardly," it's still just something you already knew.

User avatar
blu
 
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby blu » 10 Sep 2012

Okay, we're talking about slightly different things.

As I noted in my OP, it's not his explanation of the film which I necessarily considered fresh or brilliant, but the way that the final section which I quoted was put together and expressed.

User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 361
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Cape Town

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby Bob » 10 Sep 2012

Every single puny human being has the ability to dual-process with an emotion and a thought. Every. Single. Person. And when those two line up in unison we are become involved in what we are seeing. We are being present.

That sums it up pretty well

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 10 Sep 2012

well ok, guys, but here's what Hulk says about meaningless extrapolation:

"But the important thing in making a case with semiotics is that collective context is the most critical thing to use. It requires that the deduction both makes sense based on all the evidence, and thus fits into the context of everything else presented. It this last part that ritually drives Hulk nuts when people start interpreting art. Heck, there's 90 million lost theories out there that are based on one detail and go on for pages and pages without ever fitting in a larger context outside the argument (Lost "guru" Doc Jensen was particularly horrible at this). One must always be careful not to jump off the handle into meaningless extrapolation. One must constantly ask "How does this all piece together?"


and, well, the truth is, i agree with this, too (except to say Hulk is over-caricaturizing LOST fans and Doc Jensen in particular -- who wrote for EW about LOST... a lot!).

I just wonder if you guys agree with the paragraph above?

more info: Jeff "Doc" Jensen also gets to handle all David Lynch stuff for Entertainment Weekly.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/11/14/blue-velvet-25-lost-footage-david-lynch/

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20311937_20346922_20744157,00.html

http://music-mix.ew.com/2012/02/10/david-lynch-interview-crazy-clown-time/

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154190,00.html

User avatar
Xav
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 13 Nov 2011

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby Xav » 10 Sep 2012

HULK wrote: ONE MUST ALWAYS BE CAREFUL NOT TO JUMP OFF THE HANDLE INTO MEANINGLESS EXTRAPOLATION. ONE MUST CONSTANTLY ASK "HOW DOES THIS ALL PIECE TOGETHER?"


Is the next quote an example of such "extrapolation"?


kmkmiller wrote:in MULHOLLAND DRIVE there are three distinct characters sharing a purgatorial existence

User avatar
kmkmiller
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 29 Jun 2012

Re: Brilliant Article on MD from "Badass Digest"

Postby kmkmiller » 10 Sep 2012

could be. there's just that darn lamppost in the opening scene.


Return to Mulholland Dr.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron