David Lynch/ "Mulholland Drive"

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pace

Guest
Just curious if there is anyone here who would like to discuss this film director, and especially his latest movie “Mulholland Dive”. It has been called by some “a divine work of art”.
 
It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do you think it’s a divine piece of art? If so, why?
 
I actually love a lot of Lynch’s work. I was a huge fan of Twin Peaks, and I also loved Wild at Heart. My reasoning is simple: I admire a director who looks at the world, and at his craft, differently. As for a worthwhile discourse that incorporates a religious angle: that would require additional study on my part…

Have you got something in mind? A conflation of Lynch and religion that you’d like to discuss?
 
I like Lynch’s eye for the most part – loved *Twin Peaks * and Blue Velvet. I went into *Mulholland Drive * with anticipation but while the storyline was compelling and intriguing I thought Lynch went over the top with the graphic female “relationship.”

'thann
 
There is such a thing as a bad movie. I’ve seen it and I was not impressed. I loved Blue Velvet.
 
Mulholland is the last name of my priest. Father Dave Mulholland, wierd.
 
I find Mullholland Drive to be a work of “cinematic” art… “Divine”? of course not… it was probably rated O by the Catholic reviewers when it came out… graphic depictions of sexuality? yep… but Lynch captured the way many people dream… people becoming other people… charactors switching names, etc…things having different meanings, surreal made real… amazing stuff… it blew me away… and is part of my dvd collection. Strongly advise under 17 not to view.
 
40.png
astralis:
It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do you think it’s a divine piece of art? If so, why?
Yes, astralis, I am one of those who does, though of course I don’t know all of the implications of saying something like that.

I beg eveyone’s patience beforehand when I ask questions like: What is it about MD that you think is displeasing to God?
 
Tyler Smedley:
Mulholland is the last name of my priest. Father Dave Mulholland, wierd.
Tyler, you are from the Seattle area, I bet? There was a “good” coincidence like that that occured there at about the same time this movie was released.
 
40.png
thann:
I like Lynch’s eye for the most part – loved *Twin Peaks * and Blue Velvet. I went into *Mulholland Drive * with anticipation but while the storyline was compelling and intriguing I thought Lynch went over the top with the graphic female “relationship.”

'thann
thann,

This is the question that one has to wrestle with when one encounters the Lynch movies, that’s for sure. After having done so for a long time, I am now convinced that the nudity,violence, language, etc. in these movies is ‘from God’.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
I find Mullholland Drive to be a work of “cinematic” art… “Divine”? of course not… it was probably rated O by the Catholic reviewers when it came out… graphic depictions of sexuality? yep… but Lynch captured the way many people dream… people becoming other people… charactors switching names, etc…things having different meanings, surreal made real… amazing stuff… it blew me away… and is part of my dvd collection. Strongly advise under 17 not to view.
Good to talk with a fellow fan, F2R!

Could you explain, though, more of what you meant by “of course not…”

I agree that it is no small claim to make, and even that it hasn’t ever come up before (that I know of), but from what I have seen of the coincidences surrounding this movie and those surrounding Lynch’s life in general, it becomes more and more difficult to explain away.
 
I saw Mulholland Drive, and found it to be a head-scratcher. I appreciate the fact that the director does not spoon-feed exposition to his audience (this seems to be a rare thing in films, though I found the same approach by another director in the original Matrix picture). David Lynch is a artist, no doubt about that.

He definitely portrayed the relationship between the two women as ultimately unhealthy; I can’t help but think, though, that the same idea might have been portrayed less graphically. It looked suspiciously (to me, anyway) as though Mr. Lynch caved in to sensationalistic Lesbian Chic for the sake of box office.
 
ecs 220:
I saw Mulholland Drive, and found it to be a head-scratcher. I appreciate the fact that the director does not spoon-feed exposition to his audience (this seems to be a rare thing in films, though I found the same approach by another director in the original Matrix picture). David Lynch is a artist, no doubt about that.

He definitely portrayed the relationship between the two women as ultimately unhealthy; I can’t help but think, though, that the same idea might have been portrayed less graphically. It looked suspiciously (to me, anyway) as though Mr. Lynch caved in to sensationalistic Lesbian Chic for the sake of box office.
I think you hit the nail on the head. We (whether Catholic or not,it seems, perhaps even especially us Catholics) cannot tell the difference anymore between something being built-up and something being destroyed. We seem to have lost track completely of how to accept the ‘big picture’, the ‘whole’, and, getting bogged down in the ‘parts’, we can’t even tell whether something is being glamourized or not. This is the very reason, I think, that necessitates the very things we are objecting to in these films. (Forgive the clumsey grammar.) So the fact that we don’t know whether something is a glamourization or not necessitates the showing of more and more…so that we might investigate our way into the truth. This is what I think MD is. And this is what I think the gift of Lynch is…even to us Catholics. The most beautiful way into the Church had to come from outside the Church, I believe.
 
40.png
Pace:
What is it about MD that you think is displeasing to God?
I’m sure He’s not thrilled with the glorification of lesbian sexual interactions.
 
40.png
bquinnan:
I’m sure He’s not thrilled with the glorification of lesbian sexual interactions.
Bingo. It made me squirm – I found it gratuitous. So what if it happened in the context of a dream? Not all dreams should be revealed, particularly in such a graphically prurient manner. The scene could have been changed or eliminated and the movie would not have suffered. Lynch has gone beyond good taste and I will probably avoid future movies. Hard to backtrack once you’ve gone over the edge.

Too bad. I like his imagery. The opening scene of *Blue Velvet * was masterful.

'thann
 
40.png
bquinnan:
I’m sure He’s not thrilled with the glorification of lesbian sexual interactions.
How can we be sure of that, bquinnan? And how do we know that it didn’t come from God himself?

I would also have to say that if we take the movie as a whole experience, like I talked about above, there is no way we can look upon those scenes as contributing to a glorification or a glamourization of the actions contained in them. Plus, the very scenes in themselves carry a mood of repulsiveness.

And were those lesbian interactions, or did they only appear to be? Why do we think ‘lesbian’? What I think took place (and I believe the evidence points to only this - so again, why do we think lesbian before it’s time?) is we were shown visually what it’s like to fall in love with oneself, or rather sin disguised as oneself.
 
40.png
thann:
Bingo. It made me squirm – I found it gratuitous. So what if it happened in the context of a dream? Not all dreams should be revealed, particularly in such a graphically prurient manner. The scene could have been changed or eliminated and the movie would not have suffered. Lynch has gone beyond good taste and I will probably avoid future movies. Hard to backtrack once you’ve gone over the edge.

Too bad. I like his imagery. The opening scene of *Blue Velvet * was masterful.
I’m not sure those scenes are as graphic as we imagine them to be. Part of the reason for this, I think, is the omenous music that accompanies them. They are actually pretty tame by any standard. I would still make the case that, until we know for sure whether scenes like that are good or bad for us, we are by that very fact making it necessary that a loving god would feel compelled to send us more scenes like that (whether in real life or in movies, but preferably in movies where we won’t get hurt as bad).

This concept is made clear in the movie you mention, thann. In “Blue Velvet” Sandy at one point says to Jeffrey, “I don’t know if you’re a detective or a pervert.”

This is the question God wants us to ask about ourselves and about him, I am convinced. It’s the only way we will know. And doesn’t it seem like it is getting more and more difficult to tell the difference between God the Father and “God” the molester (the devil)? Again, this is MD. Betty say’s twice the line, “I can call my Dad.”
 
Pace said:
[Referring to lesbian scene]
How can we be sure of that, bquinnan? And how do we know that it didn’t come from God himself? .

Let’s be REAL careful here. God creates, the devil twists, confuses and destroys. The devil creates nothing, so all things “come from God.” But what exactly came from God? Our sexuality. What does the devil do? He twists what comes from God. Homosexuality is not a part of God’s plan for us, so let’s not make the argument, as a Catholic, that a lesbian “love” scene from a movie came “from God [H]imself.”
40.png
Pace:
I would also have to say that if we take the movie as a whole experience, like I talked about above, there is no way we can look upon those scenes as contributing to a glorification or a glamourization of the actions contained in them. Plus, the very scenes in themselves carry a mood of repulsiveness.
That’s a better argument than the one above. Not having seen the movie, I can’t comment on it. I concur that it is sometimes necessary to describe sin in order to effectively comment upon it. If the commentary voiced approval, then the visual display of such a seen is not consistent with Catholic morality.
40.png
Pace:
And were those lesbian interactions, or did they only appear to be? Why do we think ‘lesbian’? What I think took place (and I believe the evidence points to only this - so again, why do we think lesbian before it’s time?) is we were shown visually what it’s like to fall in love with oneself, or rather sin disguised as oneself.
If they appeared to be lesbian interactions, then that’s what the director was trying to convey. Falling in love with one’s self? Also sinful. As to whether such an artistic display was in any way divinely inspired is probably a matter of interpretation that (not having seen the film) I am not qualified to make.
 
40.png
Brian:
I actually love a lot of Lynch’s work. I was a huge fan of Twin Peaks, and I also loved Wild at Heart. My reasoning is simple: I admire a director who looks at the world, and at his craft, differently. As for a worthwhile discourse that incorporates a religious angle: that would require additional study on my part…

Have you got something in mind? A conflation of Lynch and religion that you’d like to discuss?
I sometimes think that the absence of explicit religion in his work is it’s greatest gift. I respect the philosopher Peter Kreeft very much (though I am not well read). A recent essay at his website, “Love Sees with New Eyes”, laments the loss of a way of looking at the world, a “habit of seeing” I think he calls it at one point. Anyway, in short, I believe Lynch has restored this way of seeing to us.

You mention “Wild at Heart”. I would say that that film has restored to us the vision of what abortion is, and also restored the beauty of abortions opposite (life). Yet it doesn’t mention abortion specifically anywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top