![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
On Mulholland Drive
I just watched David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive for the first time a couple nights ago. Great movie. I really like Lynch’s stuff because it operates according to dream logic which somehow makes it all seem more “real” or “true” to me somehow, although just how is difficult to explain.
They also have explosive effects on my dream life. That night I had this dream where the dream realities were sort of shifting or warping around this central figure, this entity that was talking to me. What I mean by that is, you know how in a dream you’ll be in one place at one moment, say hang-gliding over the Himalayas, and in the blink of an eye, you’re sitting in an abandoned office building and rain is falling upside down? Well, maybe those are weird examples, but the point is that there is a sudden shift, and usually these shifts are sort of discontinuous. Elements from one dream drop off as it morphs into another. But in this dream, this entity was somehow… continuous. That is, even though it’s outward shape kept changing, it’s core essence was the same. And I don’t just mean that it was a shape-shifter either, because it was sort of the opposite. It was sort of a shape-samer. The whole of reality was shifting, but this thing remained.
And it was talking to me, telling me something. At a certain part in the dream, it was the character of Betty (from Mulholland Drive), played by Naomi Watts. But then suddenly it was somebody else and something else. And another thing. And weirdly enough, I was left somehow with the distinct impression that this being was actually Satan.
You can take that for whatever you want: a symptom of creeping insanity, a nocturnal visit by a demonic figure. Who knows? It doesn’t really matter. It’s better not to worry about it I think. It’s better just to let it sink in, to act out whatever role it’s there to act out. Which is the same way I see Lynch’s films, and have suggested elsewhere works well for dream interpretation.
While looking around for the above photo to illustrate this article with, I came across several reviews for Mulholland Drive and though, “What the heck! Just a peek won’t hurt!” But then within half a second of reading the opening lines of some of these things, I had this sort of instinctive feeling just to back away quickly. Almost as though reading the opinions of these people as they tried to package and explain was going to suck all the juice out of it. And I just keep going back to those David Lynch quotes I found:
“It’s better not to know so much about what things mean or how they might be interpreted or you’ll be too afraid to let things keep happening. Psychology destroys the mystery, this kind of magic quality. It can be reduced to certain neuroses or certain things, and since it is now named and defined, it’s lost its mystery and the potential for a vast, infinite experience.”
There’s so much more going on out there, so much more that’s possible than any explanations we can cook up. Watching these movies is really helping transform my thinking and my approach to all this stuff. It’s an invitation to be a part of a mystery, rather than solve a mystery. And it’s such a subtle but all important difference.
There’s also a really good Terence McKenna quote on more or less this same topic:
Culture replaces authentic feeling with words. As an example of this, imagine an infant lying in its cradle, and the window is open, and into the room comes something, marvelous, mysterious, glittering, shedding light of many colors, movement, sound, a tranformative hierophany of integrated perception and the child is enthralled and then the mother comes into the room and she says to the child, ‘that’s a bird, baby, that’s a bird,’ instantly the complex wave of the angel peacock irridescent transformative mystery is collapsed, into the word. All mystery is gone, the child learns this is a bird, this is a bird, and by the time we’re five or six years old all the mystery of reality has been carefully tiled over with words. This is a bird, this is a house, this is the sky, and we seal ourselves in within a linguistic shell of disempowered perception […]
Heck, while I’m rambling on about this, I thought I’d also share an interesting news item I found in an ad in my Gmail while talking with Jeremy about Mulholland Drive. It’s about actress Naomi Watts:
NEW YORK: Actress Naomi Watts says she had considered suicide before she got the role in the critically acclaimed Mulholland Drive.
According to newsweek.com, she said, ” I went through some very lonely times. I spent a lot of time in my car crying my eyes out. One night, I drove along thinking, maybe I will take a left here, over the cliff, because I can’t take it any more.”
Watts, who is to appear in King Kong adds, “It’s weird there are so many remakes at the moment. There’s a great lack of good material and new ideas. It’s emblematic of our times. We’ve run out of ideas, which is sinful. We’re going to burn out.”
Seems weird and important to me that she would come out of a life situation such as that and then into a role in Mulholland Drive which very much mirrors all that. Maybe that’s just part of Lynch’s magic - much like how supposedly the backwards talking little guy in Twin Peaks supposedly grew up with him and his friends talking backwards as a secret code. Maybe there’s some kind of insight that opens up when you stop trying to explain what things are or what they mean and just let them actually BE what they are. (Incidentally, this is where I was going with my piece on maps the other day).
I also love what Watts says above about us having run out of ideas. But I think I might reformulate it into saying something like, we’ve got too many ideas. Ideas replace authentic feeling and experience, and what we’re left with is endless remakes and “sinful burned out” simulations of the original. Man, it’s crazy that she’d make a public statement like that about a movie she’s starring in. Good for her though.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
When I first saw the movie a couple of years ago I had a dream I was on Mullholland Drive. The dream is somewhat of a blur now, all I really remember I was in a normal looking neighborhood sitting on a porch watching men hang themselves from their porches. I also remember being aware I was in a dream.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
What I love about Lynch’s movies is that it’s fun to try and figure them out. And the quest to try and find “the key” to understanding his movies can be rewarding.
When I first saw Lost Highway on video, I kept the copy for an extra week because I couldn’t figure it out. Stunning, beautiful to look at, and intriguing… but it didn’t make any sense. My rational self kept watching it obsessively, trying to find the theme, the meaning. No one else that I knew who saw the movie could help.
Fast forward to Mulholland Drive: Watching it on DVD with a fellow Lynch fan, I not only got the gist of the movie but also started to have some understanding regarding Lost Highway. Then my friend and I had a friendly debate over Mulholland’s meaning (Whose dream was it? What was the significance of the homeless man? Shit like that)
I know it’s kind of fun to keep things veiled and mysterious, but that’s what draws people in. To keep them there, Lynch has to have some substance. That’s why I didn’t gravitate to Twin Peaks at first– the episodic format was more of a tease than an enticement. Luckily, when I finally got around to watching it all, there was substance there, but tell that to the thousands of people who sat through every episode, only to feel dissatisfied by the ultimate conclusion.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Oh I agree about how seeing one of his movies helps unlock others. When I saw Lost Highway, certain things about Twin Peaks suddenly snapped into place. I don’t want to say like “made sense” though, cause that’s not quite it. And seeing Muholland Drive really put another spin on the whole thing. It’s like seeing them all together, I can tie bits and pieces together using language and symbols that he has created. Like in such and such a part of Highway or Mulholland, I can be like, “Oh, this color and object means they just entered the Black Lodge. Shit like that. I guess what I mean is that I like trying to make sense of the language and symbols in context to one another, rather than like in context to Life-at-Large or in terms of answering questions like you sais of “whose dream was it”.
Maybe the real power of it all though is that it simply gets people riled up and the dissonance it creates demands a certain amount of creative energy be put into making it all okay again in your mind.
PS. I found out earlier today the homeless “man” was actually a woman.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007491/
December 12th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Geez Tim, get with the program. Mullholland Drive is like, so 2003.
Actually, you’ve capture my sentiments pretty well. Mulholland Drive frustrated me in that it seemed a little too put-together, a little too easy to decode, a little too please-the-critics and make-it-easy-to-understand. The biggest thing about Mulholland Drive that got to me is that it offers a completely objective/boring explanation to the narrative; it’s some snubbed woman’s fantasy. I think Lynch wanted to make something more “normal,” so he made a film where most of the drama and action doesn’t take place in the “diagetic” reality, but rather in one of the character’s fantasies.
But Lynch winks at us. E.g., the mud-covered homeless man, the little man on the throne–those items can’t be known to Ms. Watt’s character at all, so we have to assume there’s more to it. Personally, I liked Lost Highway far better (26! sex scenes), largely because of the sex & violence factor, but more because Lost Highway doesn’t have a viable a Reality Escape Clause.
It’s odd to see McKenna make a comment like that. He insisted, up to his death, in the objective nature of the supra-individual mushroom/DMT/MAOI praying-mantis-and-aliens universe, so his comment about pre-linguistic experience almost seems like a concession to his opponents–kind of like what I see happening in the Mulholland Drive/Lost Highway dialectic. I sort of agree with his statement–words can trap us–but at the same time–words point the way to freedom–I’ve seen, in my own life and those around me, the evidence of of the pre-trans fallacy being a real phenomenon.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
I don’t think Lynch is afraid of being mainstream. The Straight Story? The Elephant Man? Those are Lynch movies also, and they incorporate some dream imagery but on a less disturbing scale. They are as “normal” as cinema gets.
It also can be argued that ALL of Lynch’s movies take place in one or more characters’ fantasies. Isn’t that the point of Lost Highway when Bill Pulmman says he likes to remember things in his own way?
It can also be argued that Lynch has been making the same weird movie since Blue Velvet, which is really just a murder mystery. He famously described it as “The Hardy Boys go to Hell”…
And that goes back to unlocking mysteries: Lynch wants us to try and figure them out, because he put a lot of time and effort into leaving clues for us.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Dude, it came out in 2001! So who needs to get with the program now!
Anyway, I’ve seen Mulholland, Highway, Twin Peaks, FWWM lately. What should I watch next? I saw Blue Velvet but that was years ago before I knew anything about anything. Any other recommendations?
December 12th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
“The Hardy Boys go to Hell”… that’s awesome…
But what does “figuring them out” necessarily mean? Maybe the clues are simply pointers to push you down a path which once you set out on there’s no going back.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Satan spoke to you in a dream?! Dude, that’s fucked up. (Not to say that you are, just that the situation is. I’m beginning to think more and more that dream-life is a kind of real “reality” that exists with a set of rules all its own). Glad to know you had the mental stability to handle it. You’re all like, “enh, Satan, whatever.” That is seriously cool.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Yeah, well if that’s to be believed, then that makes now dream-visits from Satan, Jesus and God (plus untold other shit). Although Jesus was the only one who I actually saw “in the flesh” so to speak.
Come to think of it, the name “Prince of Lies” seems to make a ton of sense based on what I saw in my dream - like this entity that picks up and puts down identities to suit it’s momentary needs, warping reality around itself. Prince of Lies if I ever saw one.
I guess also, when it comes to God, the Father, his being like sort of omnipresent means that I’m not actually going to physically “see” him. What I saw of him was a place and an agreement between he and I, and the agreement itself was actually a physical thing, carved in rock. Oh shit, I can’t believe I never connected that to the “Covenant” or the Tablets or anything. Wow, I’m an idiot.
Going back to the Satan not having any form thing though, Jesus also had like weird issues with form. I mean he was very much a person, but when you looked at him, he reminded you of everybody. Like he looked like everybody all at once.
What it all means? Who knows. Whatever he was telling me, Satan wasn’t especially threatening.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Was it Satan (the embodiement of evil), or was it perhaps the ambiguous Trickster (stepping a little bit outside Christian symbols)?
Maybe he wasn’t threatening because it was some all-evil dude, just a Trickster, or a Jester, using different masks to relate different meanings. The Prince of Lies implies that everything he says, or all his goals, are lies, but a Trickster or Jester is more ambiguous, and thus, less threatening. The Trickster may also have a goal in mind that is actually quite helpful to the person, but it embeds itself in “tricks”, “jokes”, and apparent lies to force you to read “between the lines”, and see the deeper truth he may be trying to relate to you.
I say this because personally, I don’t think the being or symbol in the dream is Satan. I cannot say for certain, nor can I force you to change your mind, because I did not have the dream myself. But what you describe, and your reactions to the dream seem to imply that it may have been a trickster character, rather than Satan.
I hope that helps create new connections for ya Tim!
:)
December 13th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Not especially, although I appreciate the effort. To clarify, I’m not saying it WAS Satan or that Satan exists or that it’s important or relevant for anybody else to believe anything whatsoever about my interior state. I’m merely saying that in my dream, this changeable entity seemed to be Satan. Seeing as that’s all I really have to go on here, that’s what I’m going to stick with.
In any event, I think another relevant David Lynch quote is probably in order:
I’m trying to make a conscious effort to worry less about theorising and meaning and maps and models, and just go with it….
December 13th, 2005 at 12:23 am
Alrighty, it was YOUR dream, and not mine (though I wish my dreams were as interesting as yours seem to be ).
December 13th, 2005 at 1:05 am
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as a jerk there. I just dont see the point of me saying an internal event I experienced was one thing, and then somebody else coming and saying it wasn’t. Where does that leave us?
December 13th, 2005 at 2:40 am
Have you seen Lynch’s Wild At Heart?
Nicolas Cage has some fucking amazing dance scenes in that one.
(by the way, have you read The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch? I’m not sure I “got it” but it reminded me of your dream.)
December 13th, 2005 at 3:12 am
No, haven’t seen Wild At Heart yet. Yeah I read the 3 Stigmata. Don’t remember it well though. What in particularly reminded you of the dream?
December 13th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Wild at Heart is awesome. I don’t know why it’s not more popular.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Eraserhead, m’eye friend. Eraserhead. The first Lynch film eye saw all the way through. Which coincided with m’eye first trip with shrooms.
Neither here nor there: Lynch is also a painter and was heavily influenced by German Expressionism in cinema (Dr. Caligari, Metropolis, the like).
Have you ever watched any films by Luis Buñuel? In some ways, Lynch reminds kmee of him. Eye’d recommend checking out “Los Olvidados” and “Simon of the Desert.” Eye won’t mention the one that’s usually mentioned.
Oh! the Satan in your dream reminds kmee of the little girl character in the Dick novel, The Divine Invasion. She transports the little boy Manny Archer to various places that are all really the same place, though they look different. And she changes the appearances of things to suit her whimsy.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
It’s ok, there’s no need to really apologize because you made a valid point, and your opinion/reaction was something that I understood/anticipated while I was writing my comment. Like we both said, it was YOUR experience, YOUR dream. I was just offering up the Trickster symbol as another way of interpreting it.
And like you said:
So go with it, and don’t let me get in the way, if I appear as a roadblock or a hinderence. So the question does come to mind, where/how are you going with the experience? Or better yet, what are you doing/going to do to allow the experience to take you where IT wants to take you?
December 13th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
Maybe the clues are simply pointers to push you down a path which once you set out on there’s no going back.
I concur. He wants us to figure it out for ourselves. I’m positive that he’s not just being weird for weird’s sake, but he also has no interest in playing guessing games with his fans. I think he’d welcome the real far-out interpretations of his works on the same footing as the more scholarly, academic analyses of his movies. I would wager that he probably likes the far-out explanations more!
I also concur with the notion of you watching Wild At Heart next. Not only is it the stylistic precursor to movies like Natural Born Killers, but it’s also a savagely funny satire on pop culture and the thematic symbols that Lynch himself utilizes in his cinema: bombshell blondes, ultra-shady villains, nostalgia for the ’50s, and the seedy underbelly of the American Dream.
After that movie, you’ll never see The Wizard Of Oz in the same way again.
Also: He directed Dune, a movie I enjoyed but seemingly has nothing to do with the rest of his body of work.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
other thoughts:
Burnuel is a great Surrealist but it depends on what you want from him. If you want complete surreality, Un Chien Andalou (the one that’s usually mentioned, the one that he did with Dali) and The Exterminating Angel take the cake. If you want something more linear but nonetheless dream-like and beautiful to watch, try Belle Du Jour or Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, the latter of which is now my all-time favorite art movie ever.
Also: Satan is (or at least was)a trickster. Read the book of Job, the oldest book in the Bible. Back in them there days, Satan wasn’t so much evil as he was an instigator (the word ha’ satan, where “Satan” is derived, means “the accuser”). It’s only been since the advent of Western Civilization that Satan has been associated with The Devil aka Evil.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Last thought for today (this post has piqued my interest more than usual):
I know what you mean by not wanting to follow any maps. When I make music, I throw out the rule book. I frustrate collaborators in this sense, because they are used to people sitting down and saying “Hey, I wrote a song, wanna hear it?” I’m more along the lines of “I got an idea– let’s record it and see how we can tweak it!” A couple of hours later, I have sculpted something from nothing, using nothing except my in-the-moment instincts for what sounds good. The moment I start getting bogged down in details and minor technical affairs, I step away from the studio and take a break for however long it takes me to get back into the mood.
I’m the type of guy who will labor on a song, then all of a sudden cause an accident that sounds incredible and makes me throw out everything else I just did. My intuition tells me to follow the path that sound sth best, and believe me when I say that it pisses people off because they feel as if I am trashing the session. However, nearly everyone agrees at the end that the finished product sounds cool enough to be worth all the trouble.
Do you make any music, Tim? If not, get a copy of ACID. It’s a great intro for non-musicians who want to start making music. You’ll find, after some time, that creating music is very much like dreaming, but I can’t tell you why that is so.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
Good calls all around James. For anyone interested in an excellent historical analysis of the development of the personification of evil, check out the series by Jeffrey Burton Russell. Each one chronicles the character through stages of cultural evolution. I think their titles are something like The Devil, Lucifer, Satan, Mephistopheles. Each is it’s own volume. It’s really interesting to see just how damned different especially the Old Testament Judaism version of Satan really is - he’s essentially an agent of God - seated at “God’s Left Hand” according to some sources. As much as an instrument of God as Jesus. Really wild stuff.
Thanks for the Burnuel tips too. I’m really excited to find other people who explore creatively using these kinds of styles.
Speaking of Lynch and nostalgia for the 50’s, I saw this B (or C) movie recently from the fifties called something about a brain from some planet or other. When I first turned it on, the hairstyle and mannerisms of the dad character were SO MUCH like McLachlan’s portrayal of Dale Cooper. It was shocking.
Yeah, absolutely I make music, although I haven’t for a really long time. I really love doing it, and was using Fruity Loops for a while to craft these very video game sounding songs that I loved doing. But I also played guitar for a really long time. Problem is (just like everything else in my life) I’m better at improvising than working with real strong structures. It’s something I’ve always wanted to get better at musically, but sort of fell out of playing when I moved here since I had nobody to just kind of screw around and develop the kind of bond that I like musically with other people. I’ve only ever done a little performing, it’s more just that I really enjoy the experience of playing, especially with other people. It’s awesome. I really miss it.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
I totally agree, but I thought it would be worthwhile to make the distinction, given the current connotations of Satan.
And then there’s the Persian myth about Satan (I think it’s specifically about Lucifer, actually), in which he’s cast out of heaven because he LOVED God so much that he could not bow down to man, as was commanded by God. His failure to obey, or his failure to love anyone but God, cast him down from heaven. That’s wild too.