Club Silencio

let me go further on something here. Just thought about this a different way. What if the need to fit things it into the larger framework is, in itself, a false goal. No. Not false. I mean... taken too far. Basically, if you bring up Carol to reinforce some other consistent motifs/images in the movie (self-confident talented brunette actress who has a rapport with Adam), then that would be enough to show how she fits.

But if you say "Carol is a main character of the movie, let me tell you the secret story of Carol," then I think people already know what I think about that. And I'm willing to bet Hulk would agree with me on that kind of thing, as well. (if Hulk's validation of stuff is still... well..... valid.)

kmkmiller wrote:let me go further on something here. Just thought about this a different way. What if the need to fit things it into the larger framework is, in itself, a false goal. No. Not false. I mean... taken too far. Basically, if you bring up Carol to reinforce some other consistent motifs/images in the movie (self-confident talented brunette actress who has a rapport with Adam), then that would be enough to show how she fits.

Yep

Which begs the question, "why are you here?", or "why am I here?", or "why is anyone here?". Which is a very meta-discussion, but one worth having, and a thread that I meant to post after something Kyle (I think) said in the TP Podcast thread.

If you're here to explore the film, then you can happily lose track of the "bigger picture" a bit whilst brainstorming and heading off down some garden path, think "that was fun", and then carry about your day. If you're here for closure and to solve the film then you will allow yourself less leeway in tying everything to some central premise. I'm definitely in the former category. I enjoy myself far more with a little less restraint to my thinking. There has to be SOME control with the ideas (basing them on what is shown in the film is a start) or else a pretty garden path turns into a wild goose chase. Where's the line? I don't know, precisely, but it's interesting watching people converse when they not only have different ideas about what's on screen, but different motivations for talking about it.

I'll post that thread when I have a bit of time.

well, the thing is we are dealing with a director who encourages both an open interpretation, but Lynch also encourages a "closed" interpretation. Basically he said that no one has ever figured out Eraserhead, which means there is something we're all still missing as Lynch fans.

This encourages us to keep looking, but it also dangles out before us a "closed" answer. It's the big questions of life. Journey or the destination?? And the journey is fun, but people would not be climbing mt. everest if there wasn't a peak, or if they did, it would be to prove there is a peak we just haven't found yet.

Exploration and Destinations are false choices. they are handmaidens to each other.

kmkmiller wrote:well, the thing is we are dealing with a director who encourages both an open interpretation, but Lynch also encourages a "closed" interpretation. Basically he said that no one has ever figured out Eraserhead, which means there is something we're all still missing as Lynch fans.

This encourages us to keep looking, but it also dangles out before us a "closed" answer. It's the big questions of life. Journey or the destination?? And the journey is fun, but people would not be climbing mt. everest if there wasn't a peak, or if they did, it would be to prove there is a peak we just haven't found yet.

Exploration and Destinations are false choices. they are handmaidens to each other.

Yes but each film is different, so just because David may consider there to be a closed (probably uniquely personal) answer to Eraserhead, it doesn't automatically follow for the rest of his films.

My understanding is that the journey to the peak of Everest is not actually much fun at all. Reaching the peak is the the point of the whole thing, and then you can go home and always remember that relief and satisfaction at beating the mountain. So that's a good analogy for those who are seeking to conquer MD then leave it behind maybe, but it is not the point to conquer, for me at least.

YMMV

If MD was a mountain then perhaps originally I set out to climb it, but along the way I found a series of intricate caves. Fascinating caves that lead on to one another, connected in the strangest beautiful ways. Some caves seem like dead ends, some ARE dead ends, but they're all beautiful to hang around in for a while. Somewhere along the way I probably stopped caring about finding my way out of them, and it would almost be a shame to accidentally stumble out onto the peak (in fact that's probably impossible now anyway), and instead I'm just enjoying being lost in them.

Hence, I suppose, Lost on Mulholland Drive ...

that's cool. i arrived at a destination that for me makes the most sense.

as for hanging out in caves, i don't mind, Plato says we're all in a cave anyway.

none of that really bugs me, per se.

peeve number 1 is people who have caves to explore but use a Socratic method of prompting others to explore that cave. I dislike being asked a question by people who already know, in their own minds, what the answer is. it wastes time and has only one purpose but to boost the ego of the cave "owner," while we all stumble over finding the answer they're looking for. if you'll note i might not always be right, but i'll tell you what I think pretty darn directly. (i think my run-in with Xav makes it pretty clear i don't have much patience for a certain kind of discourse).

peeve number 2 is extolling the incredibleness of an "expert" who gives a boring interpretation of the movie ignoring the fact that the "expert" has also provided an ANSWER in the definitive peakiness sense of the word and condescendingly chided those who hang out in caves and explore meaningless extrapolations.

Just saying cave dwelling is great. By all means, just say directly what you find in those caves, and lets not celebrate those who say cave dwelling is stupid.

Negativity is the enemy to creativity. So if you want more ideas flowing, happiness in the doing, happiness in the doing, happiness in the doing.

David Lynch

happiness in the doing when the doing is NOT leading questions from a guy named Xav trying to be teacher, when the fact is we are all equals and all i really want to know is what Xav thinks. NOT what Xav is trying to teach me like I'm a subordinate.

Don't know the difference, oh well. still a peeve of mine.

Do you recognize these reflections, Mr Miller? (btw please don't answer, for this is not a question). Please stop using my name, and discuss movies. That's why we are here for.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

be happy to talk about the movies when someone talks about them.

instead they post stupid questions about an escher like painting with a rubiks cube and a mirror.

i won't use your name anymore.

there's only two rocks.