Matt

I listened. A few thoughts.

Firstly, when I got past some of the snarky snuff it's a good listen. It's always interesting to hear people chattering about MD, and you have good chemistry between you all for something like this. I'm actually rewatching Twin Peaks at the moment - just getting into the 2nd series - so might have a listen to some of the other pods up there.

Secondly, it highlights to me something that Bob and I (and others) have known for a while, and that's that the theory section of the site needs a bit of an overhaul. A while ago we considered attempting to rewrite them a bit more objectively, but it's such a big job that we didn't go anywhere with it. It's a shame that you poked fun at some of the titles without looking at some of the actual content, but I understand the limitations with what you can do without boring people shitless on a podcast like that. We’re democratic in terms of the content that we incorporate, hopefully, so that means you will indeed find some quite whacky stuff in the theory pages and beyond. However, there's plenty of even more nonsensical badly written crap that didn't make it onto the site, so if you think what's up there is "out there", that's the thin end of the wedge. But do me one small favour. Go and read "The Bribery Theory" as an example and tell me what you think. That's one that still fits in the dream/reality framework, but demonstrates how key scenes in the film can be read differently, providing a totally new perspective. Cheers.

I think it’s important to understand what the original purpose of the website was when it was conceived by the regular posters back on Rotten Tomatoes all those years ago. I don’t think any of us back then really expected the site to grow to the size it has, to sprout its own forum, and (judging by the number of hits and visitors we get) such a go-to place for information about the film.

We made the site simply to catalogue our discussions and discoveries, wary of the fact that the RT forums were splitting at the seams and that at any moment the owners/admins could decide to prune any number of sub-forums, threads or posts from the forums there. Or that at a whim board upgrades could and would wipe important images from threads.

I actually don't mind having a bit of fun poked at me at all, and I can understand how from the outside looking in it could look a bit "neurotic" or obsessive. Believe me, when I've shown the site to friends some of them have looked at me a bit funny from time to time at the amount of depth of material on here. But this has all been built up over more than a decade, and as Kyle pointed out up there (and I will comment on his post if not now, then soon), people have different drivers and motivation for wanting to fall down the rabbit hole and have a poke around. Some stay for years, others just for a few days. Everyone gets something different out of the film, and for the majority I assume it's "WTF was that?" and then they never really think about it again. A few might have a poke around online, a few less might even register on a message board, and a very small few go and make an entire fucking website dedicated to the stupid thing. And someone somewhere surely will write an exceptional book about it building on the ideas that have been discussed over the years.



Evan was actually quite perceptive when he said (paraphrasing) "it's just a load of stuff that happens, and the stuff that actually happens is not important, it's the way that the film makes you feel that matters". And that "feel, don't think" anti-intellectual approach to MD is 100% completely valid. Whatever floats your boat. The great thing about this film is that you can approach it from a million different angles. So Evan can "LOL" at our diggings and chat, I'm just pleased he's getting something out of the film. More than many of the obsessives probably.

Oh and Claire, btw, she definitely knows a little bit more/has read a little bit more than she was letting on to you all there in that room.



People have kind of said here and in other threads about the fact that this was originally a pilot, so I won't bang on about that and just say that I think ctyankee sums up my feelings when he said:

Have you watched the pilot? The LoMD website goes into great detail as to the changes but the short of it is that the feature film follows quite closely with the pilot albeit with the added Jitterbug dance and scenes at the end. The point being that the disjointed narrative is alive and well in the pilot to be sure. So a viewpoint could be that it was the pilot with added material. Is it better to have a failed pilot or an expanded pilot turned feature film?

Your viewpoint is your viewpoint, I'm simply sharing mine. I don't give a darn whether someone had a million feet of film and trimmed it down into a short film nor do I care whether a tailor took a coat length of material and made it into a jacket. I just care how the jacket turned out.

All films are made in the editing room. It's simply the process.

Perhaps the focus on that was inspired by the Twin Peaks closed ending pilot movie, but I think that you have to judge something against what it is (or tries to be), not what it isn't. And MD isn't a pilot with 45 minutes tacked on the end. It's a feature film and however difficult it may be to get it out of your mind, the path that it took to get there is not that important when it reaches screens.

Oh, and on the topic of a little piss-taking, you'll get a giggle out of this video. Be sure to share it with your pals from the pod. We got a kick out of it nearly 10 years ago when I found it, and it still makes me laugh today.

Click me >> Mulholland Drive Support Group

Cheers

blu

Awesome post Blu. I'm afraid I can't follow it up with something as well written but I really enjoyed reading it and considering everything you said.

Yeah, I think from the way everyone else was talking about it Claire was a bit too shy to show her full love for the film. And I'm glad you can see Evan's point of view as well. Mostly I'm happy that you could still stand to listen even though our opinions differ from yours.

And though we tackle this film in completely different ways, I still admire all the passion you guys put into your fandom for this movie.

PS: I posted that video on our discussion group. Thanks for leading me to it. :)

I think some final thoughts (for me, anyway) the real topic though,.... Look at it this way, in college I wrote this big long paper of THE HEART OF DARKNESS and got an A +plus. I didn't call it "My Theory on THE HEART OF DARKNESS by Kevin Miller", I gave it a real title apropos to the themes, and motifs, recurring images that I was investigating in the book.

I just think the word theory has a nasty connotation at least in how it relates to talking about a movie.

Which is why I'm going to try to figure out a different word. I like the words "write up," or "analysis". Neither of those words imply anything definitive.

Twin Peaks Podcast wrote:Awesome post Blu. I'm afraid I can't follow it up with something as well written but I really enjoyed reading it and considering everything you said.

Yeah, I think from the way everyone else was talking about it Claire was a bit too shy to show her full love for the film. And I'm glad you can see Evan's point of view as well. Mostly I'm happy that you could still stand to listen even though our opinions differ from yours.

And though we tackle this film in completely different ways, I still admire all the passion you guys put into your fandom for this movie.

PS: I posted that video on our discussion group. Thanks for leading me to it. :)

I'm glad you came and talked to us about it. That was decent of you even though you knew you were probably walking into the lion's den a bit.

Glad you enjoyed the video.

And poor Claire. Send her our way if she wants to talk in more receptive company.

"It makes no sense!!" - a common response on first viewing. Understandable but

"It makes no sense to me, therefore: It makes no sense AT ALL!" ...is maybe a little arrogant, non?

I suppose that those whose egos are tied to the idea that 'They Get Film' are more likely to feel this. But would you flick through Finnegan's Wake and then pronounce that it makes no sense and dismiss all the analyis done on it?

It's a shame the podcast guys and girls won't hang around to discuss this - they had some interesting ideas in there.

e.g. I liked the idea that the whole movie is REALLY contained in this moment:

Diane: What does it [the blue key] open?
Hitman: *laughs scornfully*

i.e.

Audience: What does it [all the clues etc.] open?
Lynch: *laughs scornfully*

e.g. I liked the idea that the whole movie is REALLY contained in this moment:

Diane: What does it [the blue key] open?
Hitman: *laughs scornfully*

i.e.

Audience: What does it [all the clues etc.] open?
Lynch: *laughs scornfully*

yes, that was insightful to a very clear purpose, something that my profile pic tries to convey.

But that said, I can't imagine there would be any scorn in Lynch's laughter with respect to his audience, he seems like such a sweet guy who's pretty sincere about his art. only maybe even that is part of the show.

Basically, we may be as confused as Diane but not as ugly in the soul.

I think there's something in that, though. Lynch is offering up a scenario in which someone asks what the function is, only to be met with derisive laughter. It's very pointed. I think Lynch is showing us the extremes of his filmic philosophy. What exactly is meaning?