I have gotten some really interesting comments on some of the Lynch reviews I have published. Some of those center around my lack of seeing a Christological framework in Mulholland Drive. I am not quite sold on the notion that there is one.

QUOTE

I have gotten some really interesting comments on some of the Lynch reviews I have published. Some of those center around my lack of seeing a Christological framework in Mulholland Drive. I am not quite sold on the notion that there is one.

If there was one, it must've happened during the scene where my wife and I were both obliged to cover our heads ... y'know, that scene.

Even if there is a Christological framework in it, so what? Sometimes such things are not worth looking for. If I suspect that your horse swallowed my missing nickel, I'm not going to muck out your whole stable looking for it.

QUOTE

If I suspect that your horse swallowed my missing nickel, I'm not going to muck out your whole stable looking for it.

I'll have to remember that one, even though I agree with Leary, that Mullholland Drive is a worthwhile piece. While certainly not appropriate viewing for everyone, I found it to be a profoundly meaningful piece of work with a deeply broken heart. I think it's the film that all of Lynch's previous work has been leading to, and the one that best expresses what he has sometimes expressed in clunkier, far-too-caustic ways.

QUOTE

I agree with Leary, that Mullholland Drive is a worthwhile piece. While certainly not appropriate viewing for everyone, I found it to be a profoundly meaningful piece of work with a deeply broken heart. I think it's the film that all of Lynch's previous work has been leading to, and the one that best expresses what he has sometimes expressed in clunkier, far-too-caustic ways.

Well, I wouldn't say it's not worthwhile or meaningful in some respects. Certainly Lynch has earned the right to have his films taken seriously. (I'm a big fan of his "tamer" works -- Elephant Man and Straight Story.) And there's some great acting, profound questions and arresting filmmaking in Mullholland Drive. But I feel completely comfortable playing the "objectionable content" card in this case. If my "nickel in a stable" analogy feels too dismissive of the film, then I'll offer this: If I order a gourmet meal and there's a wilted leaf of lettuce in the salad, then I'm sending back the whole meal, by cracky. Plenty of other meals to be had, and I'm a long way from starving.

And gee -- I haven't seen Blue Velvet or Eraserhead, but if they are much more caustic than Mulholland Drive they might set my DVD player on fire. There's certainly no subtlety in what MD says about the film industry.

x.

(M)Leary said:

: ...But the lynch pin of the narrative...


could help but notice that one.



Serioulsy though - I'd be interested in the case for the Bum being a Christ figure. In fact come to mention it have you guys written on MD at all. I watched it over the summer and am still a bit confused. (I was getting somewhere and then Jeffrey interpretted the film totally differently to everyone else!)

Matt

Matt, if you're referring to the review on my site, my "guess" at the meaning of the whole thing has changed considerably since I wrote that, and I need to re-write it.

But I still think the whole film is about how, without love, our lives are full of a devouring emptiness that drives us into self-love, an illusion that requires the construction of a major fantasy life. Thus, the so-called "erotic" (but I say "repulsive") sex scenes are an expression of the way Hollywood culture throws fuel on the fires of our narcissism, so that we idolize and lust after our own glorified image of ourselves. And that goes until we hit the brick wall, we wake up to the vanity of all we have given so much to achieve, and we are left with, shall we say, the Gollum state of ourselves: the devoured, self-loathing, angry, desperate, even violent shell of what began with naivete and desire.

Yeah it was the website review I was refering to. Be interested in reading your re-write if you ever get the chance.

FWIW it confused me mainly in terms of who was dreaming about what rather than about themes which pretty much went over my head in the quest for trying to make sense of the narrative.

Matt

I have a quick little piece on the film and Lynch's films in general that pretty much sum up my thoughts on him. I have yet to write an extended review on it, but would love to if I can ever find the time. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

x.

x.

x.

Hi Gregory,

Um I've nly seen the film once whereas it sounds like you've seen it a few times. You've probably forgotten what it feels like when you've just watched your first Lynch film - my primary feeling was confusion & bewilderment. So in answer to:

"Matt, as a rhetorical question, can you think of one way in which the bum is NOT like Christ? "

The answer is no - I can't. I can actually only vaguely recall who the bum was and even then I'm far from sure. Was he the guy behind the diner?

I asked the question cos it had never occured to me that he might be a Christ figure so I was curious as to why you'd said it. I'm not trying to prove a point (rare I know) just trying to find out why you think it.

Matt

QUOTE

Matt, as a rhetorical question, can you think of one way in which the bum is NOT  like Christ?

Um ... He's in a film that also contains an explicit lesbian sex scene?

(Alvy, if I start to sound too much like your old pal RevKev, just let me know...)

x.

QUOTE

Actually, he would sometimes travel a hundred miles in one direction to see it, and other times he would see MD twice in one day.  To me, this is the essesnce of MD, and another proof of it's origin.

Sorry, that's a complete non sequitur. The fact that someone was compelled to see the film so many times proves nothing about its origin. I might just as well say that the nature of the Divine is contained in the burritos at Taco Del Mar, since I've eaten so many of them.

x.

QUOTE

However, I do think that if you ever read or listen to some of the descriptions of the encounters people have had with MD, you might agree with me that there is something authentic about them.

Oh, indubitably there is. I'm not trying to say that there's no Christ image or redemptive framework to be found in the film. If the story of Christ's redemption is indeed the "greatest story ever told"--and I believe it is--then we shouldn't be surprised when that story, or bits and pieces of it, keeps cropping up repeatedly in the unlikeliest of places. After all, it's woven into the fabric of the universe. There's hardly a tale worth telling that doesn't have some aspect of the Divine image in it. You can tell I've read C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers, no?

I'm just saying that sometimes the pieces of that image are so fractured and covered with grime that they're really not worth digging for.

QUOTE

It's not a matter of guilt when I say that I feel it is true that everyone who watched MD felt just the same as this man felt, and that it was he who did the most rational, honest thing in his response. MD isn't so much rejected outright as simply drowned out by so many other things. I know that for movie reviewers especially this could be a very difficult thing to go through. But God gives a very comforting response even in the movie itself, I think.

Well, I'd have to disagree with you there. I sure as hell didn't feel like driving 100 miles to see it again--not even once, let alone 30 or 40 times. And in my case, to do so would be neither rational nor honest.

x.

To use another in what seems to be an interminable list of analogies:

Imagine a building in Italy with crucifixion scenes painted on two of the walls. One, you think, is a previously unknown fresco by Da Vinci; the other is a stick figure drawn with spray paint by a vandal. Both have been painted over, but you have obtained permission and some grant money for restoration work. You have only enough time and money to restore one of the paintings. Which one will you choose?

Any shred of redemption in MD, or any resemblance of any of the film's characters to Christ, is, in my view, (a) purely accidental; ( not worth puzzling over. I find nothing compelling about MD; I regret having seen it even once; and I feel myself under no obligation to watch it 30-40 times in order to tease out whatever scrap of truth might be in it. Especially when I still haven't read The Brothers Karamazov.

x.

x.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Lynch has ever been very forthcoming about his intentions, particularly with this film. It could very well be that MD is so open-ended that virtually any interpretation is possible. One may insist that the Imago Dei is there, but one cannot prove it. I suspect that you wouldn't find the film half as interesting if it weren't so hard to define what is going on.

It's probably not intentional on your part, but the language you keep using gets under my skin somewhat. If I take what you say literally, I'd have to conclude that you think I'm irrational, dishonest, cowardly and irresponsible because I refuse to parse some Christian meaning out of MD. Well, I am none of those things. Just indifferent. I will, however, make a point of reading The Brothers Karamazov now.

deleted

x.

QUOTE

There is a site dedicated to Lynch called City of Absurdity. They have quotes there from Lynch  A-Z.  After reading them ( some time ago ), and reading quotes from Lynch from other sources, I had to come to the conclusion that he has revealed himself more than any person/celebrity I know of. I believe that his intentions emerge from these quotes in a mysterious way. I think ( now ) that it is a great service done to us, and something very, very hard to do, for a director to restrain himself from revealing his intentions and the meaning of his films.

Here you present two essentially contradictory propositions: that Lynch has "revealed himself more than any person/celebrity I know of" and that he's "restrain[ed] himself from revealing his intentions and the meaning of his films." Well, which is it?

QUOTE

It's hard for me to really talk about this film simply because I don't know what it is that I'm trying to say but I think that the point David Lynch makes with \"Mulholland Drive\" is simply this: to provoke free thought.

I don't know what the "RT MD forum" is. I gather that the post you've copied here is not your own. Or is it? At any rate, provoking free thought seems like an awfully flimsy objective for a feature film. Art by definition provokes free thought--that's what makes it art and not propaganda.

QUOTE

Think of it as an exercise in mental gymnastics if you will.  As those who have seen it will doubtless agree, the key to fully appreciating \"Mulholland Drive\" is to celebrate your own individual dynamic.

In that case I can fully appreciate it by declaring, in celebration of my own individual dynamic, that the film is complete twaddle.

QUOTE

Whether or not the film makes sense is irrelevant ( I couldn't make head or toe out of it ) as its genius lies in it's ability to constantly challenge and surprise.  But its more than just a bag of tricks.  \"Mulholland Drive\" is layered and subtle, rich in texture and intricacy.  When I think of it, I imagine a wondrous playgroungd that is protected by an impossibly high wall and each viewing  brings the wall a little lower to the ground.   But don't think for a minute that you'll ever figure it out.  It is the antithesis of one of those formulaic Hollywood  Blockbusters that tends to be greeted with so much indifference these days.  This is a film that forces you to think for youself and it is damn near impossible to get out of your head.  Some people have likened it to a Rubik's cube and they are not far off.

Yes, they are. Rubik's Cube has a solution, for crying out loud. I used to be able to solve the blasted thing in less than two minutes.

QUOTE

For me, there is no truth, only perspective.  That's just my opinion anyway.

My opinion of that statement should be fairly easy to infer.

QUOTE

I believe that there is truth in the movie as well as freedom of perspective.

This is you talking now--right, gregory? If you believe there's truth in the movie, then the movie must have a point of view, which means it's about something more substantial than just provoking free thought.

Thanks to Amanda for giving this exchange a separate thread. gregory, I hope you will break your promise not to post again, as I find the discussion very stimulating.

x.

How timely that, in the midst of this discussion,
THIS news story would be posted.

David Lynch wants to save the world. Apparently, whatever you might think the bum in Mulholland Drive represents, Lynch is more interested in "yogic flying" and transcendental meditation than he is in Christ.

x.

QUOTE

And the Eucharist may be the perfect example of a 'blank canvas' where God can somehow show the fullness of his holiness or humility. It may be the perfect 'screen' on which to project the perfect 'movie'.  I think the bum is also this perfect canvas/screen. Everything essential to Christ and his mission seems to be there.

First reaction: Huh?
Second reaction: Huh?
Third reaction: First you say the bum is a canvas/screen onto which something (the image of Christ?) is being "projected" by someone (you?). In the very next sentence you contradict yourself -- you say "everything essential to Christ and his mission" seems to be there. Dude, if it's being projected, it's not already there and vice versa. "Projected" means you are reading something into the film that the director did not intentionally put there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bum is a guy in the film who wanders out from behind a dumpster in an alley and frightens people a couple of times. How does that embody "everything essential to Christ and his mission"? Give me specifics.

I'm beginning to be reminded of people who travel hundreds of miles to see the face of Jesus in a pancake. Whether they're projecting the image, or whether it actually seems to be there, I would still argue that it has no intrinsic significance.

x.

x.

x.

QUOTE

I was wondering whether there is anything more like a piece of bread than a hobo?

Wow. Okay. This thread has just officially become too surreal for me. It's been a long strange trip.

In my experience of Christ figures in art, I've never seen anything to suggest to me that the bum in Mulholland Drive qualifies. We see too little of him. His function in the film is too small. Lynch structures those brief appearances with quite a bit to make us respond to him with fear and dread. He might be supernatural, indeed, but I get from him the same sense of darkness that I get from a lot of the demonic figures of Twin Peaks. I do not see any love in the MH bum. I do not see any tenderness or attempt to communicate. I won't say it's impossible, because I believe God can speak to someone through whatever he chooses, but I do not think seeing the bum there as Christ opens up the rest of the film or contributes to our understanding of the larger picture. Some interpretations are rewarding, others are fruitless cases of "reading into" something, and for me, at least, seeing the bum as Christ feels like a serious case of "reading into" something... loading it with our own concocted meaning for which there is not enough evidence.

For that matter, the Cowboy could be Christ. At least he serves a function in the movie of offering some kind of caution to our heroine, some kind of help. But I don't think there's anything to suggest he is Christ... nothing beyond his role of concern and care.

I'm certainly not saying Lynch's films are meaningless. I just don't see THIS meaning in it.

x.

x.

[quote]How timely that, in the midst of this discussion,
THIS news story would be posted.

David Lynch wants to save the world. Apparently, whatever you might think the bum in Mulholland Drive represents, Lynch is more interested in "yogic flying" and transcendental meditation than he is in Christ.[/quote]

from the article:

"...Eraserhead, the dystopian vision of the future that ends with it's protagonist's head being ground into erasers."

The movie doesn't end this way. It ends with it's protagonist embracing heavenly creativity. If David Lynch has brought us Christ in MD, why should we focus on anything else?

[quote]David Lynch accepts the anger and injustices and suspicion that comes his way with joy and peace, just like the bum. So maybe we are not recognizing the face of Christ Our Lord? Has Lynch been the instrument that has 'incarnated Christ into cinema'? Could it have been done through a 'believer'? If he has, what would his personal life matter? And who can say whether silence itself may not now be the most appropriate prayer? How can a simple question like "Where is Christ NOT in Mulholland Drive?" not have an answer?[/quote]

Gregory, i'm all about Lynch, especially Eraserhead. I wore Henry as an avatar on these boards for several years, and there are times that i miss him, but still other times when i believe i've outgrown that stage.

I'm all about searching for meaning in Lynch's films. I've sat in crowded college parties and debated Eraserhead's mysteries for midnight hours on end. Maybe there is meaning, maybe there's not. More than likely it doesn't matter. We're talking about an artist who erects wall-sized paintings and then puts very real maggots with raw meat on the painting just to "keep it moving and alive." The weirdness of what he's doing far surpasses any valid point he's trying to make, and he deserves to be looked at in that light.

Your constant posting on this issue is now putting you in this kind of light as well. You are to Lynch what Aronofsky's Max was to Pi. If you seek out a particular number, you're going to find it everywhere. In the search to unlock the secrets that crack a code, in defying madness you instead become the mad, cracked code.

Sol says in Pi (i looked it up just for fun): "You want to find the number 216, you can find it anywhere. 216 steps from the street corner to your front door, 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator... When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere."

You're looking for order in the extremely complex and chaotic universe of one man's mind. What you are becoming is a person who sits in the garage telling the whole world he's a car, but it doesn't make him one.

-s.

I appreciate the kindness of a response. I x'd out my posts here, including the one you quoted ( before I could get to it ). Perhaps it's possible to look at the responses to my posts and this would reveal more of what is happening or has happened? How I would have loved to continue discussing Lynch's works with you! I respect that you don't feel that this is a productive thing to do anymore. I was never afraid of the hatred that might come my way. I chose to post what I thought was right. The Father will tell us one day if it was right. I will try to prepare myself for whatever he might say.

From one Lynch fan to the next, there is absolutely no hatred coming your way. I don't think that was implied in my post and i still feel that everything i said was applicable to this conversation. I just feel that you're reaching, and i feel that you're wrong.

-s.

And for what it's worth, have you been on any other threads besides the Lynch-related ones? I think that a working knowledge of the artform in general would be crucial to understanding the artist, as much as i believe that a look at all of the works of an artist in context are better than narrowly focusing on one particular piece of the artist's puzzle.

-s.

Gregory, looking back through the posts I see no evidence of hatred. I simply see that people are interpreting Lynch quite differently than you. There's nothing inherently wrong with interpreting things differently. But when you have made your point and others do not agree, to go on and on and onmaking your point ad nauseum will basically generate more than just disagreement, but eventually people will start ignoring it. As you have not been participtaing in conversations on any other subject, it makes you SEEM strangely preoccupied with one topic, and that too can be off-putting. To then decide that those who have QUESTIONED your opinion are responding with HATRED really throws your judgment into question. I'm not saying you've done anything terribly wrong, I'm just explaining how you might find more productive conversations on the board.

Until then, I am going to close this topic. I think the question of whether the hobo in Mulholland Drive represents Christ has been more than exhausted in this thread.

(By request of one of our regulars, the thread will be kept in the archive, not deleted.)