Hollywood outsider David Lynch plunges into Tinseltown's
dark psyche:
Philip Lopate on Mulholland Drive
Mullholland Drive will be shown as part of the 39th New York Film
Festival.
Mullholland Drive, David Lynch's newest, is a film so compelling,
engrossing, well directed, sexy, moving, beautiful to look at,
mysterious, and satisfying that it threatens to unnerve the aesthetic
premises of those who, like myself, are not intrinsically Lynch
fans. For die-hard Lynchians, undisturbed even by the narrative
incoherence of Lost Highway, it will be catnip; but what about
the rest of us, the skeptics? How will we explain this sudden
embrace of a mannerist who in the past had seemed adolescent,
self-indulgent, and even vulgar, if not meretricious?
Of course, one would need to have been half-blind not to acknowledge
Lynch all along as a brilliantly original film artist, a fabricator
of stunning images, passages, and moods who created his own recognizable
universe onscreen. But that was the problem: as with Fellini,
it was a universe so preciously fond of itself and its schtick,
it did not seem to need my appreciation. Devoted to another ineffable
ideal (Mizoguchi, Dreyer, Ophüls, Hou Hsiao-hsien) I could
simply sidestep Lynch's uncanny as not my cup of tea. Call me
an old fart: the point is, I have no stake in youth culture, no
need to appear hip by over-praising Eraserhead, Lynch's grotesque-by-the-numbers
debut, or the overwrought inventiveness of Dune. The Elephant
Man's restraint pleasantly surprised me, but Lynchians discounted
it as a contract job, just as they later mistrusted the amiable
The Straight Story, which also lacked the director's coercive
portentousness. Blue Velvet, Lynch's signature film, I found ravishingly
hypnotic yet silly. I could not take seriously its indiscriminate
promotion of the lurid, its investment in unmasking the American
Dream (as if anyone still believed in that), combined in a Manichean
fashion with a questing mythos of innocence. Wild at Heart was
worse, a detestable merger of Wizard of Oz faux-naïveté
and Touch of Evil sinister. Twin Peaks, intriguing up to a point,
became too coy with its surrealist tropes. But I swooned at Twin
Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, a guilty pleasure that worked precisely
because it stopped trying to make narrative sense and entered
a trance-space, especially in the nightclub scenes. Given my preference
for just those passages in Blue Velvet that had seemed most transfixed,
most stoned, I was beginning to think that Lynch succeeded best
when he surrendered to a dreamy calm, time standing still. So
it was dismaying to find Lost Highway a bust, despite its great
visual surface, because, with so much identity dissolution there
were no characters to follow; it was too abstract.
I've dwelled on the pitfalls of Lynch's style to emphasize that
Mulholland Drive triumphs not from any abandonment of that ominous
manner but from its maturation or fulfillment, brought on by small
adjustments to the formula. For example, there are still grotesque,
surrealist touches, but without quite the coyness attached. Identities
are shuffled, as in Lost Highway, but not before the characters
have been solidly established. A much greater degree of control
is in evidence. And there is, I hope to show, a new current of
adult feeling that eventually displaces the old, one-note titillation
of foreboding, or at least coexists with it.
Mulholland Drive begins with a black limousine snaking through
the eponymous hills; the lights of the city that Auden called,
in reference to Chandler's mystery novels, "the Great Wrong
Place," shine below. Angelo Badalamenti's score provides
the mood, the ache. A bruised brown and blue palette, tight compositions:
a hot, morose brunette in the back seat (Laura Elena Harring)
is about to be shot, executed, but is saved by a collision with
another car. She stumbles from the wreck in a black cocktail dress,
and makes her way in high heels down the hill, where she finds
an apartment court in which to hide out. Suffering from a concussion,
she has lost her memory, and her handbag contains no ID, only
piles of cash, probably stolen.
We've been here before. Lynch uses film noir as an atmosphere,
a gesture, a lost paradise. Until the film takes hold, a belatedness
hovers over the enterprise: one thinks not just of classic noir
(In a Lonely Place, The Killers) but, even more, the revisionist
cycle that plays with the legend of Los Angeles and/or fiddles
with structuralist, amnesiac time-schemes (Barton Fink, Pulp Fiction,
Memento, The Limey, L.A. Confidential). Then something more gripping
starts to happen, partly through the introduction of a counterweight
to noir, a perky little blonde named Betty (Naomi Watts), just
flown in from Canada, and the resulting chemistry between these
two dissimilar women.
Betty is wholesome, optimistic, determined to take the town by
storm, or to help out a stranger in need because it's the right
thing to do. There is something comic in this pairing of the buoyant,
new-kid-in-town, Doris Day-ish, resolute Betty and the bewildered,
cowering, glamorous, tainted "Rita," still in her cocktail
dress. As they track down clues to her missing identity, the terror
starts to recede, and they become empowered adventurers finding
connections in a web. Think Rivette's Céline and Julie
Go Boating.
When they first meet, Betty unexpectedly finds this dazed woman
in her aunt's shower; the woman volunteers the information that
she has been in an accident, but is silent when asked her name.
As it happens, a large poster for Gilda hangs on the bathroom
wall, so when the amnesiac emerges she has an answer for the blonde,
and an identity: "Rita." Harring recaptures that wounded,
duende heritage of Rita Hayworth (real name Margarita Carmen Cansino),
as well as her vagueness, the stunned, incomplete aspect. It's
the vacancy that comes with extraordinary beauty and the onlooker's
willingness to project any combination of angelic and devilish
onto her. In this case, she truly doesn't know who she is, so
she has to be reactive, sweet, and self-inventive.
mulholland drive
mulholland drive
mulholland drive
What makes most femmes fatales fatal is their unconsciousness;
it allows them a dangerous plasticity. All femmes fatales are
amnesiac, in that they forget their vows. See Jane Greer in Out
of the Past, Hayworth in Gilda, Yvonne de Carlo in Criss Cross,
and any number of sweetly accommodating sirens (but never steely,
self-aware Barbara Stanwyck) who form the template for Lynch's
Rita.
Mulholland Drive is a movie about movies, in more ways than one.
This time Oz is Tinseltown. Small-town America has been replaced
by Hollywood, a milieu Lynch (whatever his Missoula upbringing)
now understands much more concretely than Middle America, and
is much less apt to patronize. He knows the exercise of arbitrary
power by studio heads, easily comparable to Mafia godfathers.
He knows the way pretty young women are passed around by old men,
chewed up and spat out, their spirits broken. He knows the insecure
dignity and self-absorption of the bit players, and can satirize
them with refreshing economy. He knows, too, the way Los Angeles
can come to feel like a company town, provincial in its interconnectedness.
When a minor character says his family is in "the business,"
he apologizes for the shorthand and explains, "show business."
One assumes all the apartment court denizens, including the crazy
old psychic, were originally drawn to Los Angeles by the promise
of stardom. Thus, the insularity of the Southern California film
community becomes an apt analogue for that larger conspiracy Lynch
is always hinting at: everyone is in on It, everyone is related,
and they are all in the business of manufacturing dreck. That's
show biz. And a part of Lynch loves the dreck, its pop vitality,
or the routines that go into it, as he shows with the relaxed
scenes of actresses auditioning for a dopey doo-wop number. What
he is really drawn to is performance.
Where identity is not fixed, performance becomes a floating anchor.
Betty, who seems so sunny and perky, practices the lines of a
scene for her upcoming audition with Rita. The scene is dreck
- something about a young woman outraged at the behavior of her
father's partner - and Betty plays it with becoming, self-righteous
anger, prompting Rita (who has been woodenly feeding her lines)
to marvel: "You're good." She certainly is smooth. The
next day, at the audition, Betty has to act the same scene with
a lecherous has-been, and suddenly she does it with surprising
lubricity. Again she's good. But completely different. (It helps
that Naomi Watts is so gifted.) This little turnabout shows the
playful fluidity that represents, for Lynch, the promise of human
character, the reverse side of the anxiety that comes of not having
a fixed self.
So, when Rita, realizing she's in danger, decides to disguise
herself, she dons a wig, and the two heroines compare their blonde
hairdos in the mirror. It could be a moment out of Bergman's Persona
or Altman's Three Women. Rita's gratitude toward the grounded,
protective Betty is palpable, as though no harm could come to
blondes. We feel the warmth of their becoming pals. Not long after,
Betty tells her she needn't sleep on the couch, they can share
the bed, and Rita goes a good deal further than pals: she strips
off her nightgown, revealing a full figure, leans over the timid
Betty and begins kissing her.
What is remarkable is that we haven't seen it coming, and yet
accept it completely. When Betty tells Rita as they embrace, "I'm
in love with you!" it is as if she is understanding for the
first time, with self-surprise, that all her helpfulness and curiosity
about the other woman had a point: desire. Who can doubt her?
But it took Rita to make the first gesture, the presentation of
her voluptuous body to the smaller woman. In this arena, Rita
is the performer. When Betty asks, "Have you ever done this
before?" (meaning: gone to bed with another woman), Rita,
ever the amnesiac, confesses, "I don't know." But the
intuitive logic of her generosity seems to flow from the trust
and mutual dependency that has been building between them. The
two women offer their breasts to each other (and to us). It is
a beautiful moment, made all the more miraculous by its earned
tenderness, and its utter distance from anything lurid.
We can only speculate why Lynch should have needed the voyeurism
- or sympathetic detachment - of watching two women in bed to
permit himself this first convincing portrayal of an adult love
relationship. Later, Rita wakes up with a premonition and gets
Betty to accompany her in the middle of the night to a sort of
Magic Theater, à la Hesse's Steppenwolf. In this scene,
two-thirds of the way through, the film seems to descend to a
more unconscious level. Until now, however bizarre, everything
had been causally connected, a one-thing-after-another linear
narrative. Now the two women go home together, carrying a blue
box that mysteriously materialized in front of them at the theater,
enter their bedroom - and Betty disappears. A key is inserted
in the box, which falls to the floor. From here on, all bets are
off. Betty, no longer wholesome-looking, is now living alone in
a much rattier apartment court, and having a prolonged fever dream.
Occasionally Rita visits her and they start to make love, only
now Rita seems to be a movie star named Carmela, and all that's
left of their relationship is betrayal, humiliation, abandonment.
It's as if Lynch could only sustain the ecstatic rapport, the
intimacy of love for a few brief scenes, before turning it into
a nightmare. The threat comes less from the dark forces of crime
(the syndicate who might be hunting Rita never draws close to
her) than from the fragility of love. Once Rita plays the sexual
card, it would seem, she gains the upper hand and becomes the
heartless Carmela, while Betty loses all her spunk, turning into
the One Who Will Be Rejected.
The events in this last hour, which I'll call Part B, may feel
more fragmented, less compelling than the meticulously ordered
Part A, but we need Part B's disenchantments for emotional balance.
The two stories appear to have been folded into each other, in
a Möbius strip, with some details overlapping and some not.
What gives? Is there a right solution, which only David Lynch
knows (and much more clever, diligent film critics than myself
will have figured out)?
Several possibilities exist, and, being an incurable rationalist,
I feel obliged to enumerate them. 1) It was all a dream - as we
used to say at the end of our compositions in elementary school.
This is the most consistent, encompassing explanation, but does
not take us very far. It simply reduces all phenomena to the same
flat, invented plane. 2) It is a mixture of dream and reality.
In this arrangement, some characters, seen in a purported "real
life," would be transformed and given other functions. The
question then remains: which part or parts represent the reality
that the dreaming mind is reprocessing? 3) The two narrative tracks
exist in alternate, parallel universes. I can never understand
what this increasingly employed explanation means, and regard
it as the last refuge of sci-fi scoundrels. 4) Since we see Betty
masturbating in Part B, it suggests that all of the narratives
could be her masturbation fantasies. Another way of putting it
is, If all the events we see are subjective, be it daydream or
nightmare, whose subjective consciousness is being tapped? Betty's?
Lynch's? Rita's? All of the above? (In Gestalt therapy, they teach
you that you are everyone and everything in your dream. How could
it be otherwise?) Maybe it doesn't matter. If you surrender to
the film, it becomes your "parallel universe."
Much has been made of the fact that Mulholland Drive began as
the pilot of a TV series that then never got funded; Lynch, deciding
to release it as a feature, then went back and shot more footage
to flesh it out. Certainly, some of the film's idiosyncratic aspects
might be explained by its television origins: the credits, a Fifties-type
dance party with special effects that feels like a series title
sequence; the episodic nature of the narrative; the many secondary
characters who are introduced to us in early scenes but never
come back to the story (including name actors such as Dan Hedaya
and Robert Forster, who were undoubtedly scheduled for later reappearances).
The TV-style reliance on close-ups becomes a strength, given the
painterly lighting of Peter Deming's cinematography, and its restriction
of our visual information reinforces the claustrophobic dream
subtext. The self-conscious art direction suggests, too, one of
those "paranoid" cult shows like Wild Palms or The X-Files,
with Los Angeles contemporary-villa style read as conspiracy decor.
The pacing, too, is more TV-like: the scenes shorter, their imperturbable
forward march closer to Twin Peaks than to Fire Walk with Me.
Fewer tour-de-force cinematic passages, more stress put on the
totality of the atmosphere.
I know a number of film critics who have already seen Mulholland
Drive several times. It encourages multiple viewings, partly to
solve its riddles but also because it has that seductive, languid
tempo that bears revisiting. In that sense it belongs to a newly
evolving genre (such as Wong Kar-wai's In the Mood for Love) that
operates like a fusion of movie and pop music; one can either
keep seeing it in theaters or put on a DVD of it, like a favorite
music CD. The languid, seductive rhythms, the unresolved, circular,
less-than-overbearing narrative, the sexy actors all contribute
to a kind of personal, open-ended fantasy, or pornography, of
yearning.
Phillip Lopate's last book was a collection of film criticism,
Totally Tenderly Tragically.
© 2001 by Phillip Lopate
|