Friday, April 30, 2010

Mulholland Drive

Mulholland Drive criticizes the “dream factory,” while at the same time providing insight into the creativity abundant in the masses. Interplaying between the real and surreal, the film is presented in a non-linear form, loosely (if at all) defining what is supposed to represent reality. In his commentary on Hollywood, Lynch manipulates time, space, and characters in a way unseen in traditional Hollywood cinematography, yet the film incorporates stereotypical movie elements; mobsters, hit men, a femme fatal, beautiful women. Watching this film, there are many elements to identify with, as you feel as though you have seen them before, yet there is a large sense of the irrational which may be uncomfortable for viewers. Hollywood taught us to identify with a protagonist and to follow their reality. In this case, Betty, and her attempt to make in Hollywood, would be expected to be the main character. We know this by her perky blonde behavior, her cheesy bubblyness that is apparent in so many movie mainstream movie characters. She comes from a small town, full of innocence and charm, as the characters always do. But if we try to watch the film latched onto her, it would appear to make very little sense. If instead, we consider Hollywood as the protagonist, the driving force manipulating the character’s actions, a greater analysis may be drawn.

For me, the main message I gathered from Mulholland Drive was how Hollywood can kill, and is killing, creativity through forced convention. The director embodies this idea most readily. He is forced by mobsters and “The Cowboy,” an iconic image in American movie yet holds no meaning in the film specifically as a cowboy, to feature a main actress who he does not want, stifling his vision of the film. Just the fact that Lynch uses so many aspects from other films illustrates that most Hollywood films are just remakes of each other. Through commercialization there is a homogenization of what a movie should be and the elements in should have. Mullholand Drive has a lot of those elements but is certainly not a Hollywood film. One example that really stuck out for me was the splattered pink paint in the argument between the director and his wife. As they fight over the jewelry, paint splotches them both like blood in a fight. Pink paint came to represent blood, which is an element of gore in many movies. When the director is going to see the Cowboy, his suit covered in paint, the image recalls so many other movies when disheveled men in proper clothes look tough covered in battle’s blood. In this sense, Lynch shows that all is not stifled by Hollywood, free thinking and the unexpected still exist.

Trying to make sense of every image and plot point in this film would be incredibly difficult. There are far too many surreal aspects that I don’t think are supposed to be explained. Some elements and turns in plot seem forced in the unexpected, such as Betty and Rita’s attraction. Secretly, I think audiences want to see a lesbian relationship in film when there are two women living together such as they were, alone trying to piece together Rita’s life in an expensive L.A. apartment. Although unexpected, the movie gives us that, which was a surprise to me as Betty seemed rather asexual. These characters seemed to be manipulated by a higher force and not by their own will, like Hollywood is forcing this to happen. I felt that especially when Betty repeats “I love you” to Rita, it seemed very flat, said because that is what is supposed to be said during a sexual encounter.

Ultimately, I think Lynch is pointing out the creative potential in American filmmaking when the filmmaker is open to create at will. Lynch confined himself to traditional Hollywood elements yet by altering the narrative structure, created a completely different film.

5 comments:

  1. I liked what you said about this film containing various stereotypical movie elements such as mobsters, hit men, a femme fatal,cowboy, etc. I'm starting to understand now that really no one has the pin point analysis of this movie because there is just so many confusing elements to interpret. They simply do not all fit together. I really wonder what David Lynch was trying to portray when he was filming this movie. Was it simply about meshing all of the stereotypical movie elements seen throughout cinematography history or was it something much bigger or rather smaller than this? All I have to say is that Lynch is a strange man.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think he meshed them all together to comment on Hollywood. Taking these elements out of context, we still recognize them to be part of movie tradition even if they don't carry any real meaning in and of themselves. We realize how Hollywood stifles creativity, producing a formula for films which film makers are expected to follow. So yes I think Lynch had a greater meaning than to just put together stereotypical parts of movies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's something specific that you said I really liked: "Hollywood taught us to identify with a protagonist and to follow their reality." I think that Lynch is deliberately showing us that we have been taught to expect certain things from movies and this film defies all we have been made to understand about movies. All of these stereotypes show up but they all seem very shallow and don't seem to offer anything substantial to the film by themselves, but all of them together have some larger purpose to the film. I like how you said it's an example of "creative potential" instead of a way to criticize Hollywood in some way for mass producing the same generic films.

    I have to say I disagree with you about the relationship between Rita and Betty being unexpected. I saw it coming almost from the second they met, but I do agree that Betty declaring her love seemed lacking in emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure the film even had a protagonist at all. A lot of what Lynch did with the film seemed to challenge the norm for what people watch. It makes us want to rationalize by choosing a protagonist ourselves and it just adds on to the confusion. I'm not sure what his point was, but he certainly makes it tempting to look for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What fascinates me about Betty is how she steps into and out of smoking sexuality. She's such a ridiculous ingenue, we don't expect it of her. But then there's what she does in the audition. Suddenly, absurdly, the whole thing is on fire. Then she steps back out and is all aw shucks again. It's as if she's the true femme fatale, not dazed and sultry Rita, who better looks the part. The role is in neither of their natures, but one either of them can play at any time.

    I like your point about the pink paint referring to conventions of bloody battles survived, but in such a silly way.

    And yeah, I agree with your take that this movie is ultimately about how murderous Hollywood is.. Murderous, and full of ghosts of itself--souls and roles that everybody gets dragged into, interchangeably.

    ReplyDelete