I’ve always felt that “Mulholland Dr.” was Lynch’s saddest film (as I also developed what I later found out to be its most common interpretation). There’s just total disillusionment and loss. Even tragic films like “Fire Walk With Me” or deeply emotional tearjerkers like “The Elephant Man” end with the surreal and beautiful sense of hope. “Mulholland Dr.” just collapses me in its unrelenting honesty and pain.
its unbeliveable how high quality and intelligent your videos are, i really hope youll get an audiance that appreciates you and makes your views go up to 7 digits
This means so much, it's taken me a while to develop the production, every video was a learning process, and every video I try to make something slightly better so thank you so much!!
I really appreciate your take on Mulholland Drive and Lynch's work in general. I feel like it's the first video essay I've seen that I really agree with. I'm surprised you don't have more views. Keep up the videos, I hope your channel takes off.
This particular review feels like a haiku about Hollywood: The narrator describes the industry’s harrowing underbelly over a backdrop of Sade’s sultry, dreamlike vocals. It’s as if Camilla is singing to Adam from beyond; “I couldn’t love you more” (Sade’s lyric)
I am not sure so perhaps i should just shut up, but since nobody answered you in a year, from what i understand, as long as you make it undoubtedly a reaction/essay/treatise and intrinsically yours, that means at the very least 51% you talking and try to avoid original music ,as much as that sucks, you should be fine. With your other q i cannot help at all. And i agree with you, this is a fantastic essay of a true gem in the art of film making. Everything is at its right place, really everything. I love and appreciate a number of films, not a very large number but still, but i do not remember another film coming close to what this movie did to me.
...alas it helps that he's got for the object of the painting, the capably talented beauty Naomi Watts. I wonder if the project was dreamed up just for her to play. I would.
I really like this video. After rethinking about it however, I think the author makes an error. From the video, I am more left with the feeling that Mulholland drive belongs to impressionism, and because impressionism is associated to painting, the conclusion is that the movie is a painting. To me it is not: it is an impressionist movie. I do not see any frame in the movie as paintings, but I do see all the shots rooted into impressionism.
David Lynch is a self-avowed Surrealist. By default, his works have no intellectual content - nor should they - as they must be blind products of his sub-conscious, to be legitimate Surreal art. I enjoy his films as I would enjoy watching a cat chase a ball of string. I enjoyed 'Twin Peaks', but not as a valid piece of art (being intentionally devoid of human rationale), but more as 'a spectacle' or 'freak-show'. The secret to making Surrealism attractive to cinema-goers, is to punctuate it with gratuitous violence, sex, profanity and all kinds of moral aberrations. If you expelled those elements from David Lynch's films, you would be left with next to nothing. One could apply the same rule to Kubrick and Tarantino films, although Tarantino is an Exhibitionist of carnage, rather than a Surrealist. Surrealism goes hand in glove, not only with Materialism, but also with Modernism, as it removes all moral responsibility from the artist, given that it is the blind matter in the surrealist's brain, which creates the product, rather than their free-will. I find 'Dune' to be Lynch's most appealing film, as he manages to squeeze a voluminous and messy novel into a logically coherent and unpretentious sci-fi movie. If we judged Lynch's films as pieces of fine art, we would have to dispose of a great deal of them, as grotesque and immoral trash. Isn't it wonderful that we can watch this salacious dross and still congratulate ourselves, for being intelligent and sensitive connoisseurs of high art?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and all art is inherently subjective. Regardless of that, I'm not sure if you're attempting to seem intellectual by dismissing the idea of intellectualising Lynch's work, but you're scaring the hoes, please stop. Lynch's work has always been underpinned by an exploration of America, or at the very least a cultural interest in it, and to not understand or outright reject that, would be to simply do so for the sake of seeming more interesting and subversive as a person. It's like trying to tell someone blue isn't blue. To what extent Lynch plays around with those topics and themes, that is up for legitimate discussion and interpretation, and you are right, it can from the outset seem redundant to analyse something that may not even be completely understood by the creator himself. Nevertheless, it is not without merit. Ultimately, I think there are several different approaches to film, and art as a whole, but your clear facade of grandeur comes across as a lot more pretentious than the films you're trying to claim are pretentious. They're just movies man. They were an expression of art for the guy that made them, they're an expression of art for the people who watch them, and they're an expression of art for the people who like to talk about them. Not all of that has to perfectly line up, that's sort of the point of art in case you missed it. Not to put the nail in the coffin, because I am always up for genuine discussion and debate, and would love to hear back from you, but to say that Twin Peaks was 'not a valid piece of art', is one of the most redunant sentances I've ever heard. Nothing makes art valid, and the fact that you think you can validate 'art' is honestly an awful attitude to have. Like seriously dude, grow up.
@@screen4646 See Siskel and Ebert reviews: Blue Velvet: “…Isabella Rosellini was forced to do things so humiliating (By Lynch) that I found myself in complete rebellion against this movie.” “It wasn’t fair for the director to hide behind a curtain of irony and comedy while there was no place for (Rosellini) to hide. “With a movie like this, your intellect may get confused, but your emotions will always tell you the truth.” Wild at Heart: “What bothers me the most about David Lynch is his ‘Only Kidding Syndrome’. He wants to deal with the most shocking possible imagery; he wants to deal with subject matter that involves violence and images that are sure to absolutely repel the audience; and then he always wants to end with a punchline that is "a joke.” “I hate it when Lynch tries to get off the hook of his violence, by giving us those cornball laughs at the end of every one of those (ultra-violent) sequences.”…”With one hand he makes a movie with violence and sex and rock n roll and exploitation, and he’ll do anything to get a rise out of the audience, but at the same time, he’s got that lofty and superior tongue-in-cheek attitude, that lets the “sophisticated” viewers know, it’s all a “joke”. Well I think the joke is wearing thin.” Lost Highway: “… a terribly violent and rather meaningless film..its violence pops out and seems empty-headed..its considerable violence really turned me off.” DITTO! In future Lynch, along with Tarantino, Lanthimos et al, will be regarded as the greatest frauds of in the history of cinema.
Lynch is a graduate of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. It's the same school where Thomas Eakins taught. Sadly, the school closed a couple of years ago. Its main bldg is a masterpiece by architect Frank Furness. It's in Philadelphia on N..Broad St.
@@track1949 Yes, and Sir Ridley Scott was educated in the arts and was a cmmercial illustrator and designer for many years before he started making movies, so then I guess he's no'a directah oythah. LOL
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
One of my most favourite films!
I’ve always felt that “Mulholland Dr.” was Lynch’s saddest film (as I also developed what I later found out to be its most common interpretation). There’s just total disillusionment and loss. Even tragic films like “Fire Walk With Me” or deeply emotional tearjerkers like “The Elephant Man” end with the surreal and beautiful sense of hope. “Mulholland Dr.” just collapses me in its unrelenting honesty and pain.
its unbeliveable how high quality and intelligent your videos are, i really hope youll get an audiance that appreciates you and makes your views go up to 7 digits
This means so much, it's taken me a while to develop the production, every video was a learning process, and every video I try to make something slightly better so thank you so much!!
Fantastic presentation of complex ideas. Bravo! More!
Why is everyone complaining about the background music? I like it also I don’t think it derives from the analysis. I enjoyed the video
You're one of the best film channels if not THE best and deserve so much more attention, love your videos
Thank you!! It's definitely been a long process of trying to find my voice, but I think I've found the vibe!
Fantastic analysis!!
Naomi Watts kills it in this, just incredible.
You're just talking about THAT scene aren't you?
naughty naughty
Her Oscar snub was a crime. Not that Oscars are particularly credible anyway
Well, Llorando is actually a Spanish version of the Roy Orbison song "Crying".
Thank you I was thinking the same thing!
Very well written essay 👍
I really appreciate your take on Mulholland Drive and Lynch's work in general. I feel like it's the first video essay I've seen that I really agree with. I'm surprised you don't have more views. Keep up the videos, I hope your channel takes off.
About time, fantastic video, many hours spent chewing the cud over this one.
hehe
First time hearing his voice. Always thought he would have a deep voice.
Husky old smoker lad
great video!!!
This particular review feels like a haiku about Hollywood: The narrator describes the industry’s harrowing underbelly over a backdrop of Sade’s sultry, dreamlike vocals. It’s as if Camilla is singing to Adam from beyond; “I couldn’t love you more” (Sade’s lyric)
Does Roy Orbison’s song “Crying” actually originate as a Spanish song? I’ve always assumed it was a Spanish cover featured in Mulholland Drive.
MD was the first film I saw in a movie theater after 9/11.
cool vid what songs did you use in the background
This is actually a very good essay. I want to start making video essays, how do you edit your videos? How do you find footage legally? What equipment?
I am not sure so perhaps i should just shut up, but since nobody answered you in a year, from what i understand, as long as you make it undoubtedly a reaction/essay/treatise and intrinsically yours, that means at the very least 51% you talking and try to avoid original music ,as much as that sucks, you should be fine.
With your other q i cannot help at all.
And i agree with you, this is a fantastic essay of a true gem in the art of film making. Everything is at its right place, really everything. I love and appreciate a number of films, not a very large number but still, but i do not remember another film coming close to what this movie did to me.
Awesome video
Wonderful video
...alas it helps that he's got for the object of the painting, the capably talented beauty Naomi Watts. I wonder if the project was dreamed up just for her to play. I would.
I really like this video. After rethinking about it however, I think the author makes an error. From the video, I am more left with the feeling that Mulholland drive belongs to impressionism, and because impressionism is associated to painting, the conclusion is that the movie is a painting. To me it is not: it is an impressionist movie. I do not see any frame in the movie as paintings, but I do see all the shots rooted into impressionism.
❤
I think you'll find he is, in fact, a director
👏👏 👏
Couldn’t get past the 2 minute mark because of the music
I’m so interested in his analysis but the music makes me feel like I’m trapped in an elevator at a W Hotel
Great video but the music is quite distracting
Music choice is atrocious
David Lynch is a self-avowed Surrealist. By default, his works have no intellectual content - nor should they - as they must be blind products of his sub-conscious, to be legitimate Surreal art. I enjoy his films as I would enjoy watching a cat chase a ball of string. I enjoyed 'Twin Peaks', but not as a valid piece of art (being intentionally devoid of human rationale), but more as 'a spectacle' or 'freak-show'.
The secret to making Surrealism attractive to cinema-goers, is to punctuate it with gratuitous violence, sex, profanity and all kinds of moral aberrations. If you expelled those elements from David Lynch's films, you would be left with next to nothing. One could apply the same rule to Kubrick and Tarantino films, although Tarantino is an Exhibitionist of carnage, rather than a Surrealist.
Surrealism goes hand in glove, not only with Materialism, but also with Modernism, as it removes all moral responsibility from the artist, given that it is the blind matter in the surrealist's brain, which creates the product, rather than their free-will. I find 'Dune' to be Lynch's most appealing film, as he manages to squeeze a voluminous and messy novel into a logically coherent and unpretentious sci-fi movie. If we judged Lynch's films as pieces of fine art, we would have to dispose of a great deal of them, as grotesque and immoral trash.
Isn't it wonderful that we can watch this salacious dross and still congratulate ourselves, for being intelligent and sensitive connoisseurs of high art?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and all art is inherently subjective. Regardless of that, I'm not sure if you're attempting to seem intellectual by dismissing the idea of intellectualising Lynch's work, but you're scaring the hoes, please stop.
Lynch's work has always been underpinned by an exploration of America, or at the very least a cultural interest in it, and to not understand or outright reject that, would be to simply do so for the sake of seeming more interesting and subversive as a person. It's like trying to tell someone blue isn't blue.
To what extent Lynch plays around with those topics and themes, that is up for legitimate discussion and interpretation, and you are right, it can from the outset seem redundant to analyse something that may not even be completely understood by the creator himself. Nevertheless, it is not without merit. Ultimately, I think there are several different approaches to film, and art as a whole, but your clear facade of grandeur comes across as a lot more pretentious than the films you're trying to claim are pretentious. They're just movies man. They were an expression of art for the guy that made them, they're an expression of art for the people who watch them, and they're an expression of art for the people who like to talk about them. Not all of that has to perfectly line up, that's sort of the point of art in case you missed it.
Not to put the nail in the coffin, because I am always up for genuine discussion and debate, and would love to hear back from you, but to say that Twin Peaks was 'not a valid piece of art', is one of the most redunant sentances I've ever heard. Nothing makes art valid, and the fact that you think you can validate 'art' is honestly an awful attitude to have. Like seriously dude, grow up.
@@screen4646 See Siskel and Ebert reviews:
Blue Velvet: “…Isabella Rosellini was forced to do things so humiliating (By Lynch) that I found myself in complete rebellion against this movie.” “It wasn’t fair for the director to hide behind a curtain of irony and comedy while there was no place for (Rosellini) to hide. “With a movie like this, your intellect may get confused, but your emotions will always tell you the truth.”
Wild at Heart: “What bothers me the most about David Lynch is his ‘Only Kidding Syndrome’. He wants to deal with the most shocking possible imagery; he wants to deal with subject matter that involves violence and images that are sure to absolutely repel the audience; and then he always wants to end with a punchline that is "a joke.” “I hate it when Lynch tries to get off the hook of his violence, by giving us those cornball laughs at the end of every one of those (ultra-violent) sequences.”…”With one hand he makes a movie with violence and sex and rock n roll and exploitation, and he’ll do anything to get a rise out of the audience, but at the same time, he’s got that lofty and superior tongue-in-cheek attitude, that lets the “sophisticated” viewers know, it’s all a “joke”. Well I think the joke is wearing thin.”
Lost Highway: “… a terribly violent and rather meaningless film..its violence pops out and seems empty-headed..its considerable violence really turned me off.”
DITTO! In future Lynch, along with Tarantino, Lanthimos et al, will be regarded as the greatest frauds of in the history of cinema.
I'm going to finish, but this video starts out unbelievably stupidly. Just because he sometimes paints, doesn't mean "he's a paintah, no'a directah".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor
@@screen4646 That wasn’t a metaphor you clown lol
Lynch is a graduate of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
It's the same school where Thomas Eakins taught.
Sadly, the school closed a couple of years ago.
Its main bldg is a masterpiece by architect Frank Furness. It's in Philadelphia on N..Broad St.
@@track1949 Yes, and Sir Ridley Scott was educated in the arts and was a cmmercial illustrator and designer for many years before he started making movies, so then I guess he's no'a directah oythah.
LOL