Although I understand why David Lynch does not explain his films, it still always bothered me. I had this idea that perhaps the reason he doesn't like to give explanations has something to do with the fact that his films are very personal to him, in that many of the scenes are reflections of his own life and to explain his films would mean to divulge personal details about his private life that he doesn't feel comfortable talking about. Eraserhead seems to be about his troubles with married life and being a father(among other things).

One possible example in Mulholland Dr. might be Rita/Camilla who sleeps with the director to get the lead part. Perhaps this is a reference to Isabella Rossellini who began a relationship(affair?) with Lynch around the time when Blue Velvet was being filmed. Both were married and it possibly lead to both their divorces which correlates with Adam's divorce and Camilla leaving Diane.

Just a thought.

JakeTheRipper wrote:Perhaps this is a reference to Isabella Rossellini who began a relationship(affair?) with Lynch around the time when Blue Velvet was being filmed. Both were married and it possibly lead to both their divorces ...

This is obviously explored in a lot more detail in Inland Empire. Can't comment on that because I'm still along way from an understanding of IE!

JakeTheRipper wrote:Although I understand why David Lynch does not explain his films, it still always bothered me. I had this idea that perhaps the reason he doesn't like to give explanations has something to do with the fact that his films are very personal to him, in that many of the scenes are reflections of his own life and to explain his films would mean to divulge personal details about his private life that he doesn't feel comfortable talking about. Eraserhead seems to be about his troubles with married life and being a father(among other things).

One possible example in Mulholland Dr. might be Rita/Camilla who sleeps with the director to get the lead part. Perhaps this is a reference to Isabella Rossellini who began a relationship(affair?) with Lynch around the time when Blue Velvet was being filmed. Both were married and it possibly lead to both their divorces which correlates with Adam's divorce and Camilla leaving Diane.

Just a thought.

Lynch believes that art should not be explained. I agree.

That films have a personal connection with a filmmaker (any filmmaker) is of course true and IIRC, I think that Lynch has mentioned that autobiographical element within Eraserhead, yet has never explained the film.

Directors fall in love with the beautiful woman they work with all the time. However, Lynch went after Rossellini for the role, not the other way around, so that part of it doesn't hold up.

Bob wrote:Interesting view. Added to the website

http://mulholland-drive.net/studies/rl_ ... .htm#lynch

Thanks Bob, that's a fitting picture.

Siku wrote:This is obviously explored in a lot more detail in Inland Empire. Can't comment on that because I'm still along way from an understanding of IE!

I remember when first watching Inland Empire I was so disappointed because I couldn't get past the amateur-like cinematography. Then after the second viewing I tried to look past that part and suddenly I understood what people saw in it. I still got to watch it another 10 or 100 times before I'll be able to remotely understand it.

ctyankee wrote:Lynch believes that art should not be explained. I agree.

That films have a personal connection with a filmmaker (any filmmaker) is of course true and IIRC, I think that Lynch has mentioned that autobiographical element within Eraserhead, yet has never explained the film.

Directors fall in love with the beautiful woman they work with all the time. However, Lynch went after Rossellini for the role, not the other way around, so that part of it doesn't hold up.

Where did you hear that Lynch went after Rossellini? I remember watching an interview where he said that Rossellini came in for an audition and Lynch said something along the lines "wow you look like you could be Ingrid Bergman's daughter" and the casting director said "She is Ingrid Bergman's daughter." It seemed to imply that he had never seen or heard of her. Plus she was married to Martin Scorsese, perhaps with some intent to use him to jump start her career as an actress(she succeeded with Lynch). She never was in any of Scorsese's films while they were married, maybe that's part of what lead to their divorce.

This is all just speculation but I feel that artist tend to translate personal event into their work and Lynch is no exception.

I don't see why art should not be explained. I remember an interview where Lynch compared his films to music and when we listen to music we don't ask it to be explained we just experience it. I always wonder why certain music is so moving and captivating, or why do some songs become #1 hits and others don't(is there a formula?). It's fascinating to try and explain it. I always felt that Lynch partly feels that it shouldn't be explained(at least towards his art) for the reason that if he did people would stop being so curious. Also I think he gets a kick out confusing the hell out of people.

ctyankee wrote:Directors fall in love with the beautiful woman they work with all the time. However, Lynch went after Rossellini for the role, not the other way around, so that part of it doesn't hold up.

Do you mean he slept with her so she'd take the role, rather than giving her the role so she'd sleep with him?

JakeTheRipper wrote:I remember when first watching Inland Empire I was so disappointed because I couldn't get past the amateur-like cinematography. Then after the second viewing I tried to look past that part and suddenly I understood what people saw in it. I still got to watch it another 10 or 100 times before I'll be able to remotely understand it.

Somehow I find the digital camera work makes for an even more creepy atmosphere - a bit like the video footage in Lost Highway. Perhaps it's because I'm more normalised to analogue it makes digital more dreamlike or otherworldly.

JakeTheRipper wrote:I don't see why art should not be explained. I remember an interview where Lynch compared his films to music and when we listen to music we don't ask it to be explained we just experience it. I always wonder why certain music is so moving and captivating, or why do some songs become #1 hits and others don't(is there a formula?). It's fascinating to try and explain it. I always felt that Lynch partly feels that it shouldn't be explained(at least towards his art) for the reason that if he did people would stop being so curious. Also I think he gets a kick out confusing the hell out of people.

Music can't be explained because in most cases it doesn't describe narrative events. Obvious exceptions would be opera, ballet or program music - like Peter and the Wolf: THIS bit represents the wolf and THIS bit represents the wolf chasing the cat etc etc..

This was my understanding of what Lynch meant when he said it's like a piece of music. But of course film, novels, most Art does have meaning beyond the text - something that can be decoded, understood, explained e.g. so Madelaine WAS Judy, get it? -Oh right, I though Madelaine was Laura, etc, etc.

I also assumed that the reason Lynch can't/won't explain his films is, firstly, because, like a magic trick, it'll lose all appeal once explained and he's too good a magician to make that mistake. And secondly because everyone would priviledge his explanation as the REAL one, because he's the author.

Take Guernica. It's about an atrocity and fascism and war. So what does the light bulb represent? The sun? Human spirit? Hope? All of these? If picasso said that it was the light bulb he saw everynight above his hospital bed then everyone would quote that and it would 'really' be about that. Picasso is smart too though. Here's what he said:

"...this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are."

JakeTheRipper wrote:Where did you hear that Lynch went after Rossellini? I remember watching an interview where he said that Rossellini came in for an audition and Lynch said something along the lines "wow you look like you could be Ingrid Bergman's daughter" and the casting director said "She is Ingrid Bergman's daughter." It seemed to imply that he had never seen or heard of her.

Not the case. Keep in mind she the daughter of filmmaking royalty, of course he heard of her. Reports differ somewhat, Lynch on Lynch p. 142 has Lynch staring at her at a restaurant, then apparently seeing her in a TV commercial and had her tracked down. The Complete Lynch p. 76 has him actually going up and meeting her at the restaurant. That seems more realistic to me ... but either way, he approached her and then cast her in the role.

JakeTheRipper wrote:
Plus she was married to Martin Scorsese, perhaps with some intent to use him to jump start her career as an actress(she succeeded with Lynch). She never was in any of Scorsese's films while they were married, maybe that's part of what lead to their divorce.

Casting Rossellini in a role gets Lynch divorced and NOT being cast by Scorsese causes a divorce? How can she win?

JakeTheRipper wrote:
I don't see why art should not be explained. I remember an interview where Lynch compared his films to music and when we listen to music we don't ask it to be explained we just experience it. I always wonder why certain music is so moving and captivating, or why do some songs become #1 hits and others don't(is there a formula?). It's fascinating to try and explain it. I always felt that Lynch partly feels that it shouldn't be explained(at least towards his art) for the reason that if he did people would stop being so curious. Also I think he gets a kick out confusing the hell out of people.

I think you answered it for yourself. Because it is fascinating for the viewer to experience it and come away with his or her own ideas and questions. The art is in the abstraction. Don't we have enough Hollywood endings?

Siku wrote:Music can't be explained because in most cases it doesn't describe narrative events. Obvious exceptions would be opera, ballet or program music - like Peter and the Wolf: THIS bit represents the wolf and THIS bit represents the wolf chasing the cat etc etc..

This was my understanding of what Lynch meant when he said it's like a piece of music. But of course film, novels, most Art does have meaning beyond the text - something that can be decoded, understood, explained e.g. so Madelaine WAS Judy, get it? -Oh right, I though Madelaine was Laura, etc, etc.

I also assumed that the reason Lynch can't/won't explain his films is, firstly, because, like a magic trick, it'll lose all appeal once explained and he's too good a magician to make that mistake. And secondly because everyone would privilege his explanation as the REAL one, because he's the author.

I think your completely right, because the context of his answer was in reply to the interviewer's question regarding the lack of clear narrative in his work. Also your magic trick metaphor is very true, though I always enjoyed that "Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed" series fox used to air, it did kind of ruin magic for me. As for your remark concerning an author giving their explanation for their work and it being viewed as the definitive meaning, that is something that always irritated me about artists. I think that every artist should explain their work because we could look at it as a sort of study guide that would help us not just better understand their work but also art in general. How great would it be to read SparkNotes on William Shakespeare written by Shakespeare himself. Also I don't think an artist explaining their work would prevent others from forming new explanations that would be just as fascinating, if not more so, as the authors.

Funny you should mention the Madelaine/Laura thing because as I was looking for information concerning the casting of Dorothy Vallens I learned that Isabella Rossellini has a twin sister named Ingrid Rossellini. Perhaps he met her while in his relationship with Isabella and their juxtaposition might of had an impact on him for it seems that afterwords all his works have some sort of dual/doppelganger female character in them.

ctyankee wrote:Not the case. Keep in mind she the daughter of filmmaking royalty, of course he heard of her. Reports differ somewhat, Lynch on Lynch p. 142 has Lynch staring at her at a restaurant, then apparently seeing her in a TV commercial and had her tracked down. The Complete Lynch p. 76 has him actually going up and meeting her at the restaurant. That seems more realistic to me ... but either way, he approached her and then cast her in the role.

Casting Rossellini in a role gets Lynch divorced and NOT being cast by Scorsese causes a divorce? How can she win?

It was my understanding that David Lynch initially envisioned Hanna Schygulla for the role of Dorothy. Also according to an interview with Isabella, she after reading the script wanted very much to play the role as it was completely different from her role in White Nights and during their first meeting she was told by Lynch that he desired Helen Mirren for the part. Furthermore, apparently Deborah Harry was offered the role but turned it down. It's possible Isabella could of done something to change Lynch's mind, perhaps it was her test screening with Kyle MacLachlan that finally convinced him, maybe not. Either way it appears Isabella Rossellini wasn't Lynch's first, second or even third choice for the role.

It wasn't the act of casting Rossellini for the part that got him divorced from his wife Mary Fisk but him having an affair with her. She having an affair with him and in turn becoming his partner from 1986–1991 with roles in his films is how she won.

JakeTheRipper wrote:
It was my understanding that David Lynch initially envisioned Hanna Schygulla for the role of Dorothy. Also according to an interview with Isabella, she after reading the script wanted very much to play the role as it was completely different from her role in White Nights and during their first meeting she was told by Lynch that he desired Helen Mirren for the part. Furthermore, apparently Deborah Harry was offered the role but turned it down. It's possible Isabella could of done something to change Lynch's mind, perhaps it was her test screening with Kyle MacLachlan that finally convinced him, maybe not. Either way it appears Isabella Rossellini wasn't Lynch's first, second or even third choice for the role.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Biographers certainly indicate the role of Dorothy was done very in the process. That certainly leads to others being considered way before Rossellini ... but so what? If we discounted actors for not being the first, second or even third choices we would be missing many, many of our best film roles in the history of filmmaking. So, what's your pont. If you didn't like Rossellini in the role, that's on Lynch, not on her.

JakeTheRipper wrote:
It wasn't the act of casting Rossellini for the part that got him divorced from his wife Mary Fisk but him having an affair with her. She having an affair with him and in turn becoming his partner from 1986–1991 with roles in his films is how she won.

Won what? Time with Lynch? A small role in Wild at Heart?

ctyankee wrote:I'm not sure where you're going with this. Biographers certainly indicate the role of Dorothy was done very in the process. That certainly leads to others being considered way before Rossellini ... .

I was trying to say that Rossellini went after Lynch which is connected to what Camilla/Rita did to Adam in Mulholland Dr. to get the lead role in "The Sylvia North Story".

ctyankee wrote:Directors fall in love with the beautiful woman they work with all the time. However, Lynch went after Rossellini for the role, not the other way around, so that part of it doesn't hold up.

The fact that Lynch wanted as many as three other actresses for Dorothy Vallens coupled with Rossellini's statements desiring to play the role and her actively trying to get it would seem to indicate that initially Lynch did not go after Rossellini for the part but it was the other way around.

When you take into account that their relationship began in 1986 while Lynch's divorce was not finalized until 1987 certainly leads to the conclusion that it was an affair. Also Rossellini's divorce was finalized in 1986 the year their relationship began.

Principal photography of Blue Velvet began in February 1986 and completed in April.

I think it's completely possible that Isabella Rossellini in someway or other seduced Lynch and possibly slept with him before she received the part. Perhaps Lynch felt a certain guilt not only in cheating on his wife but hiring an actress for a lead role that he might not have hired had he not been sleeping with her and it's that guilt which ended up in Mulholland Dr.(among other films with affairs).

ctyankee wrote: If you didn't like Rossellini in the role, that's on Lynch, not on her.

I thought Rossellini did a perfect job and I'm glad she was cast. If I didn't like her for the role that would be on me, not Lynch or her.

ctyankee wrote:Won what? Time with Lynch? A small role in Wild at Heart?

I think she won the part in Blue Velvet which will probably be the role for which she will always be remembered, one that eclipses everything else she has done in her life. Also she was supposedly going to receive a part in Lynch's unproduced project "Ronnie Rocket".