>>7591047 My favorite movie. But It is very visual and I think there are a lot of improvised scenes (I mean, por of it was filmed a year or so later), so the script must be very different from the final result.
>>7592212 Everything began enticing like something was about to tie it all together in a proper way, but then a stupid fucking deus ex machina happens and there's an excuse with all the retarded incoherent bullshit, and so many of the scenes are arbitrary as fuck. Then there's the fucking lesbian scene, which was a terrible commercial move for an artsy fartsy director who takes himself to seriously. (I mean, I did masturbate to that scene, but that only proves its tastelessness.)
Let me guess, you're one of those people who think twists and mindfucks are good writing. There's nothing artistic or thought-provoking about this movie, only spontaneous thoughtlessness and arbitrary pretentious bullshit.
>>7592403 I don't know what to tell you other than you didn't understand it, which is itself understandable. It isn't exactly straight forward. The first time I saw it, I wasn't sure exactly what I saw either, but I was very captivated and had an urge to see it again. I went back to the front desk of the theatre and watched the next showing and it was amazing what you pick up and see the second time through. I've seen Mulholland Drive at least a dozen times now and I love picking up interesting new details or connections I didn't quite see before. It isn't about twists or mindfucks either, but thanks for showing your quick jump to hostility which just helps prove you didn't understand it. Have you seen any of Lynch's films?
>>7592403 Seeing as how you made no commentary on the actual intentions of the film, I can only assume you didn't understand it. It's rather straightforward once you read a proper analysis on the film, all that "incoherent bullshit" falls into place quite nicely.
And the lesbian scene is actually one of the most important scenes in the movie. You're actually just a primitive mongoloid who faps to artwork. You're that guy. Sorry.
>>7594011 What's your point? For context, I understood the majority of the film, but the film is so packed that it's impossible to get it all on a first watch through. So I read a full explanation to grasp the tiny things that I missed. It's the alternative to watching the film a dozen times to pick up on everything. In fact, it makes a second viewing -- and all later watches really -- a lot better. It's not actually necessary for those who can pick up on the elements of the film and you're certainly not picking up on what I was saying.
It was more of a recommendation than anything so that he can pull his head out of his arse and see that the film isn't just Lynch bending over and projectile shit-farting onto a recording reel. Seeing as how he didn't get any of it, it would actually be a necessity. For him. Not for those of us who can comprehend films deeper than Fight Club.
>>7593370 The worst kind of pleb is a confident one. Nothing "fits together" in Mulholland Dr and the so-called explanations you see online are just overzealous dot-connecting craziness by people who have way too much time on their hands. Read about the production of Twin Peaks, Lost Highway et al. Lynch is a very intuitive director and will just include images or ideas that he thinks are strange or interesting without any real concern for how it relates to the literal plot. Mulholland Dr doesn't make sense because it was meant to be a pilot and certain scenes were things that were meant to develop or be explained later, but when it was recut into a movie, they remained unexplained. I think I've made my point here.
the main point of the film, the main themes and everything are easily picked up and understandable, without reading any analysis or whatever. if you didn't pick up on them though, you just weren't paying attention. also, it's the kind of a movie where some points are unknowable, and thats the part of the appeal, it plays kind of like a noir film.
also i want to ask you, what exactly doesn't make sense in the movie? i'm really interested because you just keep on repeating it over and over again.
the numerous interpretations and analysis do help with lot of the really dense details that are in the movie, but one can pick up on them by watching the film again.
>>7595610 I second this but at the time see some value in putting together the dots, no matter how tenuously, if that is how one wants to appreciate a movie. Just that singular theories, or ones based on intent are likely to be ... misguided for some of Lynch's less ostensibly plot driven films
It's the logical axiom of cinema, the first and therefore absolute truth to the medium. Meaning that, in a rough manner, sounds and storyline coherence are secondary to the will of aesthetic.
Following the systematic distribution of categories within cinema, it's logical to affirm that the diegetic structure of the mimesis is what matters the most, as it's closely vinculated to the roots of the medium itself.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.