Viewport width =
Mulholland-Drive
May 22, 2016 | by  | in Film |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

★★★★★

Director: David Lynch

 

If Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Interstellar, and The Shining all went to a pre-school together, Mulholland Dr. would steal all their crayons and send the lot home in tears.

Some may label it as crazy, while others regard it as one of Lynch’s finest works, but it is undeniable that Mulholland Dr. is an intoxicating liberation from sense, with little narrative order and several instances of temporal disruption. The film is about the nature of the studio system and the sycophantic fantasies of Hollywood, veiled in the story of one young actor (Naomi Watts) and their brush with fame and doused in suspense, psychological horror, mystery, and eroticism. You’d be forgiven for not realising this after your first viewing. After escaping a planned car crash on Mulholland Drive, Rita seeks refuge in a vacated apartment nearby. Betty (Watts), a hopeful young actress finds Rita shocked, confused, and carrying an unusually large sum of money. The two set off to find out more about Rita’s lost identity, becoming tangled in a interweaving web of character developments that eventually connect in various ways.

To navigate through Lynch’s complex storyline, he breaks the film into three sections. The first section—“Part One: She found herself the perfect mystery”—parodies Hollywood cinema style by way of grossly lit scenes and cringe-inducing dialogue. “Part Two: A sad illusion” builds on this further, introducing the protagonists realisations and continuing the film’s comment on Hollywood cinematic style. “Part Three: Love” is where the plot’s accelerating spiral of insanity hits fifth gear.

Upon exiting Mulholland Dr. one can only know that they have witnessed something disturbing, yet special. It’s the kind of film you watch and realise you will never be done pondering its mysteries. Alas, maybe the best way to sum this film up is to refer to the last sentence of its blurb: “No-one comes out with their soul intact.”

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent posts

  1. “It doesn’t have to be boring”: Chlöe Swarbrick vs. status quo
  2. Work
  3. Editorial—Issue 22, 2016
  4. I, Daniel Blake and the Welfare State
  5. Young Voters: Waking the Sleeping Giants
  6. The Sky Is Falling
  7. Tell us about Talis
  8. Vic group launch their Reclaim-munist Manifesto
  9. Bye Bye Little Karori (in two years time)
  10. Students seize opportunity to rant at Grant
i-daniel-blake

Editor's Pick

I, Daniel Blake and the Welfare State

: Recently at the NZIFF I was fortunate enough to see Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake, this year’s winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes. By the end of the film nearly everybody seemed to be in mourning and most of the people seated around me were sniffling and wiping their eyes. I,