It made no sense. $35 of flat packed douche-baggery.
Jump forward 24 hours. It’s midnight again, and I’m still
cross-legged on the lounge room floor, still fuming and confused. But this time
it’s because I’m halfway through David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive. I can’t help but think, if there was ever a definitive
exercise in pointlessness, Lynch is spot on with this film.
 |
In last week’s class, we discussed the main characteristics
that define classical narrative, the common structure of what is deemed
conventional/normal in film. This week, we discussed alternatives to that
structure- hence the homework assignment of watching Mulholland Drive.
What bothered me initially is that the film bothered me. I
knew that I was losing patience because to me, the film made no sense.
But after Mark went over certain points in the film with the
class I understood it. But I’m still bothered.
The reason I am bothered now, however, is because I do
understand it, and I love it. I think its genius. I now hate that I was too
dense to understand the film without having it broken down for me, and just as
much, I hate that my opinion of the film is now completely the opposite of what
it was. But I think Lynch’s film is a testament to how much of an impact you
can make by going against the grain, and rejecting conventional methods.
On the surface, it appears as if Lynch has rejected all the
qualities associated with classical narrative. Character traits, clearly defined
goals, coherence… It’s not there. At least not in any obvious way. What is there, however, is symbolism and subtext- over 2 hours of it. And next time I get
a free evening I’ll look forward to sitting down again and taking a second stab
at uncovering some more of it.
Until next week,
Silencio.
Sean.
No comments:
Post a Comment