779 Mulholland Dr.

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Twin Peaks

#176 Post by oldsheperd » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:50 pm

Just an aside: I reckon I'm the only forum member that doesn't like Mulholland Drive.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks

#177 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:56 pm

It was the first thing of Lynch's I'd ever seen and I hated it. I've completely come around on it since.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Twin Peaks

#178 Post by oldsheperd » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:00 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:It was the first thing of Lynch's I'd ever seen and I hated it. I've completely come around on it since.
The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks

#179 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:23 pm

oldsheperd wrote:The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.
This is why we can't have nice things.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Twin Peaks

#180 Post by oldsheperd » Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:45 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
oldsheperd wrote:The first and only time I saw it, I thought it was going great until it got to the gratuitous sex scene. that took me out of it, then the last 30 minutes where Lynch pretty much explains everything finished it off for me.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Eh? Sorry. I'm not a prude, but it just didn't work for me. The film was clipping along just fine for me until then. It just seemed a bit too self-indulgent and bordering on exploitation. I know a lot of critics and viewers felt it was one of the best love-making scenes ever, but for me it made me think Lynch was kind of being dirty and classless. I guess it doesn't help that I've never been a big fan of girl on girl porn.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#181 Post by Big Ben » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:16 pm

Lynch actually edited the scene itself by darkening it. Because of this the notion the that Lynch was unaware of what he was doing strikes me personally as disingenuous. Yes there is a lesbian sex scene in Mulholland Dr. but that doesn't equate to it being exploitative in my opinion. From what I personally know about Lynch and his relation to the LGBT community he's actually very well liked, especially by the trans community.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#182 Post by oldsheperd » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:28 pm

Big Ben wrote:Lynch actually edited the scene itself by darkening it. Because of this the notion the that Lynch was unaware of what he was doing strikes me personally as disingenuous. Yes there is a lesbian sex scene in Mulholland Dr. but that doesn't equate to it being exploitative in my opinion. From what I personally know about Lynch and his relation to the LGBT community he's actually very well liked, especially by the trans community.
I'm not accusing Lynch of actually exploiting lesbianism at all. My interpretation was that it was bordering on exploitation as a result of its gratuity and self-indulgence. Up to Mulholland Drive, I had and have, liked all of Lynch's films immensely especially in regards to his visual aesthetic and only show the sexual and grotesque in relation to the narrative and with some restraint. It was just a bridge too far for me as, I felt, it killed the enjoyment of what I typically find fascinating with Lynch: the visuals and opaque qualities of his narratives. I also felt that Lynch pulled the mask off of this one with the final half hour or so. It felt to me like Lynch didn't trust his audience so he felt the need to explain everything to his audience. Perhaps that was either, subliminally or not, Lynch's way of trying to become more reasonable with viewers after the critical failures of FWWM and Lost Highway which are two of his most incomprehensible, puzzling works. As a matter of fact with Criterion releasing FWWM, I'm hoping they release Lost Highway which is Lynch's most underrated yet probably one of his best films.

calculus entrophy
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#183 Post by calculus entrophy » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:00 pm

My interpretation was that it was bordering on exploitation as a result of its gratuity and self-indulgence.
Perhaps that was the intent? An alternate interpretation one could have is that Mulholland Drive (and its alter ego, Hollywood) is a gratuitous and self indulgent environment.

Perhaps that is an uncomfortable, cheap, or disappointing environment/feeling for one to experience, but that's the character of the setting, and its a different matter than the competence of the artist.

in fact, given your above perspective, that scene could be considered a success.

Just a thought to consider.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

779 Mulholland Dr.

#184 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:41 am

What was gratuitous about the sex scene? I don't remember there being any actual sex, just some kissing and fondling, and gentle at that. It's far less explicit or gratuitous than the sex scenes in Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart. Or to go outside Lynch, it stops far short of Bound and Blue is the Warmest Colour.

It seems like the emotions of that moment were the point of the sex scene anyway, that realization that the two women love each other without knowing why and without having had a gay experience before (as far as they know, anyway). It's a moment charged with emotion rather than empty prurience, indeed charged with an emotion key to understanding what follows.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#185 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:47 am

Count me as someone who’s also always wondered what the hell the fuss is all about with regard to the sex scene in this film. It neither offends nor exploits, and is a key moment in establishing a closer and somewhat uncomfortable bond between those two characters, considering some of what comes after, as you mentioned at the end of your post, Sausage.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#186 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:30 am

Its definitely meant to be a sexual fantasy and play that way to a certain extent, but then the film as a whole is a fantasy of a world where desires arise naturally and without feeling forced or needing to really work at it, compared to the bitter reality of forcing the issue until still being left entirely abandoned.
SpoilerShow
Compare the way that the dangerously exotic amnesiac Rita is the instigator of the sex scene, with Betty as the ultimate good-hearted innocent being led into all of these other mysterious worlds, to its partner 'unerotic' sex scene in Diane's apartment with Diane being the pushier more dominant and 'on top' character (yet more 'desperate' and brittle seeming for all of her forceful behaviour), whilst Camilla is passive and distant, already gone from the relationship in spirit if not yet in body.

calculus entrophy
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#187 Post by calculus entrophy » Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:54 am

I had always assumed that
SpoilerShow
1) Laura Herring's character(s) was a metaphor for Hollywood's seduction and the "sex" scene was catalyst for the "loss" of Naomi Watts' character(s) American innocence, and 2) the scene also suggests a consummation, with the loss of individual psychological boundaries and physical merging of the characters

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#188 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:58 pm

To be specific, there are three sex scenes in the film: one between the two leads which is a fantasy, one between the two leads which isn't, and that incredibly sad moment of "Diane" masturbating. The approach Lynch takes with each of the scenes is to create a contrast so the viewer can better reflect on what's really going on with "Betty"/"Diane". That one or more scenes might be perceived as gratuitous fits perfectly with what the film is trying to say.

This reminds me that in Twin Peaks: The Return, sex scenes are used in a similar way:
SpoilerShow
Janey-E having sex with "Dougie" is comical and sweet in a way that suggests a fantasy version whereas the coupling of Cooper and Diane (or is is it "Richard" and "Linda") is disturbing and frustrating in a way that is far less ideal.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#189 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:04 pm

Tried to give it a second go last night since it's on the Netflix. Got bored and decided to watch Enigma of Kasper Hauser instead. I understand where these comments are coming from, but maybe it's because I don't feel invested in the characters. I do, however, feel for the Diane character during the self-stimulation scene and the party when she is humiliated so I'm not the total monster that I appear to be.
Last edited by oldsheperd on Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#190 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:26 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:What was gratuitous about the sex scene? I don't remember there being any actual sex, just some kissing and fondling, and gentle at that. It's far less explicit or gratuitous than the sex scenes in Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart. Or to go outside Lynch, it stops far short of Bound and Blue is the Warmest Colour.

It seems like the emotions of that moment were the point of the sex scene anyway, that realization that the two women love each other without knowing why and without having had a gay experience before (as far as they know, anyway). It's a moment charged with emotion rather than empty prurience, indeed charged with an emotion key to understanding what follows.
I've always had issues, personally, depending on the tone of the film, with violence or sex in films. I'm not particularly fond of the sex scenes in Blue Velvet or Wild at Heart either, but they're in keeping with the tone of the overall film, and in my mind not as gratuitous, and in BV's case more disturbing. In addition, the scenes in those two films are much more brief. Lynch gives the viewer enough info to say, "I got the point." He lingers to far in my opinion. I would have got the message with a shorter scene.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#191 Post by swo17 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:34 pm

I remember when this movie came out and I would tell people that I really liked it, this was commonly greeted with a wink wink nudge nudge, how hott were those sex scenes response that I grew to resent. So I kind of see where you're coming from.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#192 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:37 pm

swo17 wrote:I remember when this movie came out and I would tell people that I really liked it, this was commonly greeted with a wink wink nudge nudge, how hott were those sex scenes response that I grew to resent. So I kind of see where you're coming from.
Well maybe that's what Lynch's intention was, to confront the idea of a female same sex couple as more than just a male fantasy, but an actual bond of love between two people. For me anyway, if that's what he was going for, then it backfired by going just a bit too far.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

779 Mulholland Dr.

#193 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:30 pm

What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#194 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:51 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.
I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#195 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:11 pm

Everyone keep your mouths and nipples inside the vehicle while it is in motion

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#196 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:34 pm

oldsheperd wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.
I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.
No one kissed anyone's nipples in that scene. 90% is closeups of kissing, with some brief fondling. The actual sex is elided by a cut from them kissing to (I think) a closeup of them holding hands in bed. Your "gratuitous" is some foreplay. Granted, we'll have different bars, but yours seems puzzlingly low. Again, I don't wonder if how the scene felt is amplifying your memory of how it actually is. It is a very erotic scene, but it is not graphic.

User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#197 Post by soundchaser » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:38 pm

I don't think it's fair to call that scene gratuitous when it's nowhere near as graphic as the masturbation after it, which is as far from erotic as possible. Seems clear Lynch is drawing a distinction between (heightened fantasy) love and impure, angry lust. Both involve the same naked body, but the way they feel is totally different.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#198 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:43 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
oldsheperd wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:What's "too far" about it, tho'? The scene is charged with eroticism, that's in no doubt, but I think that erotic charge is amplifying things in your memory because the scene itself is gentle, quiet, and not graphic. It cuts out before the sex proper even begins. It's just light kissing and fondling. It pales in comparison to other notable lesbian sex scenes shot before and after. It always struck me as a less is more scene.
I just recall that it was too gratuitous. There was some mouth to nipple stuff as I recall. That being said, me calling it gratuitous is my opinion. Other people have different thresholds of what is and isn't too much. You just have a different bar than I do.
No one kissed anyone's nipples in that scene. 90% is closeups of kissing, with some brief fondling. The actual sex is elided by a cut from them kissing to (I think) a closeup of them holding hands in bed. Your "gratuitous" is some foreplay. Granted, we'll have different bars, but yours is oddly low. Again, I don't wonder if how the scene felt is amplifying your memory of how it actually is. It is a very erotic scene, but it is not graphic.
I don't know. I guess I have a low bar. There's two definitions to gratuitous though. I'm also looking at "gratuitous" in terms of length and I think the scene plays on a bit too long. Like I said, just my opinion. Keep in mind I'm only going off of my one time watching it 15 years ago.
Like I said, I did try and watch the film last night and I just found it rather dull. I also just don't find the film all that fascinating as compared to say, FWWM or Lost Highway. Whereas I found Mulholland Drive's plot to be a bit too straight, I feel that LH and FWWM's plots have enough opaqueness to keep me engaged as a participant. That's one of the things I always found most enjoyable about Lynch's work is that the viewer is left to untangle the plots and symbolism.
I think, being a long time board member, that my tastes are just different from most o. For example, my rant, oh say, 8 years ago about how much I hate James L. Brooks and how Broadcast News sucks. I also consider the Big Chill to be indulging in hippe era self-exceptionalism. And who could forget when I said that Jim Jarmusch(whom I like) films are just popular because talking about him is more likely to get you laid at a hipster party.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#199 Post by oldsheperd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:49 pm

soundchaser wrote:I don't think it's fair to call that scene gratuitous when it's nowhere near as graphic as the masturbation after it, which is as far from erotic as possible. Seems clear Lynch is drawing a distinction between (heightened fantasy) love and impure, angry lust. Both involve the same naked body, but the way they feel is totally different.
As I mentioned before, I totally got the self-stimulation part. It was disturbing and sad.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

#200 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:30 pm

oldshepard wrote:I'm also looking at "gratuitous" in terms of length and I think the scene plays on a bit too long. Like I said, just my opinion. Keep in mind I'm only going off of my one time watching it 15 years ago.
I can understand that. It's definitely two or three minutes long; and while I think the length is from the tentative and exploratory nature of the encounter and therefore necessary, I fully understand someone who's not into it feeling like they want it over and done with already.

Post Reply