In the INLAND EMPIRE thread, Booth "claims" to not like Spaceballs. Well, it is true that Spaceballs is a difficult film, but what would you expect from Lynch's mentor Brooks? Once you see past the surface "comedy" you can catch a glimpes of Lynch's roots. For instance: "The Room Above the Convenience Store," which Brooks had dubbed "The Package Store Below the Belt." Different name, same place.

Anyway, what led me to post this was Booths critisims of MD - not my favorite Lynch movie but for different reasons. To me MD lacks subtext. As Booth says it is very clever, but the clues are practially labeled as such, and we have a feeling that we can fit them all into one simple narative (not straighforward, but simple). With Lynch's best, TP, BV, SS, the "clues" often breeze by without us noticing, and if we do see them, we have trouble determining what "puzzle" they're a part of. For instance, while the shot above is rich with the same overt symolosm as a scene from MD, we can't fit the bashful Giant into a simple narrative like we might the Bum. The giant is more of a "path" while the Bum is a "destination." Even though they may represent the same type of idea, one flows by smoothly, and the other stands there like a signpost.

But then again, I like Diane Keaton's episode . . .

Uhg. What did I do to the formatting?

I feel like Lynch finally achieved in Mulholland what he was trying to do in Twin Peaks. I love Twin Peaks (probably more than Mulholland actually) for my own reasons, but really I feel Mulholland is a far more complete narrative. The way things actually symbolize something tangible instead of some abstract idea that not even Lynch understands makes the movie more coherent and important a statement than anything Lynch has done since Blue Velvet (the way I see it). I wouldn't like the film as much if it were more straightforward, but I prefer comprehensible, interesting, statements (in a unique and interesting style), to total abstraction. Really I feel that abstraction is easier to do, whereas making most things in a movie as strange as Mulholland Dr. add up to make a (or several) point(s) (and a good story) is much more difficult, especially for someone like Lynch. Also I am confused as to what you mean by subtext. Using it in the normal sense I would say that Mulholland Dr. has more subtext than almost any other Lynch film.

 PS: Also how is the Giant's function remotely similar to the Bum's? I am at a loss there.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

"Every day holds a new beginning and every hour holds the promise of an Invitation to Love." 

Hey there Smokey! Hope all is well and the forum is calm - although Booth's reply to you makes me think that there is some electricity in the air! I've been well, thanks.

LWAPOM, "The way things actually symbolize something tangible instead of some abstract idea that not even Lynch understands"

I have faith that Lynch understands his ideas perfectly.

Subtext. Does MD have any? Each scene is meant to "fit" into the story. I guess you could say it is all subtext then. Traditional subtext will call up an idea unrelated to the immediate storyline while existing within it. In BV Jeffrey hides in the closet spying on some kinky sex. In SS Alvin' brakes fail. In TP Laura witnesses a drug deal gone bad. Did any of these scenes cause you wonder exactly how they fit into the puzzle? Did you even wonder if there was a puzzle they fit into? If Lynch did his job then you didn't, at least while you were viewing them, because they were part of the "story." Only later, and usually after reflection, did you start to understand another meaning to the scene. 

Are there scenes in MD that have a meaning "above" their primary relationship to the Diane "evil innocence" storyline? If there are I would be pleased.

The Giant and the Bum are both used as representations of mental processes (or spirits depending on your vernacular). That's all I meant, not that they represent the same ones.

I think that Jeffrey's spying in the closet in Blue Velvet reveals a lot about Jeffrey's character and his explains his actions later in the movie. It is also an introduction to Frank and explains his relationship with Dorothy in one of the most bizarre and disturbing scenes in cinematic history. I think this is the very core of the movie... everything else comes from it. It fits in with the rest of the movie perfectly. Also I had to think for a while after Mulholland to see how many things fit in place. And yes Mulholland has many themes besides Diane's "evil innocence". It is a commentary on the nature of dreams and movies (and how they are similar) as well as the nature of good and evil within one self. It is also an interesting character study and a moving, tragic story. I feel like it is loaded with subtext. Also Lynch has made many statements about how one day he'll realize what a certain thing in his movies means to him... it doesn't sound like he understands them perfectly to me.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

Now that's subtext!

Brooks' influence runs deep indeed.

Right, it does accomplish all those things, but it also has a Freudian subtext that doesn't relate to the "storyline." There are certain things done and said in that scene that exist coherently within the movie at a level separate from the plot.

I'm not one to spoil your take on the movie with mine (at least not in this thread!), so take the movie "Alien." There is a coherent subtext in that movie that doesn't directly relate to the plot: the anxiety of giving birth and of motherhood. The subtext is rich in that movie, but to skim the surface - the ship's computer is "mother," the android has milk instead of blood, the first alien ship encountered looks like a woman in stirrups at the ObGyn and the astronauts walk into the you-know-what, the (somewhat more obvious) alien being "born" from a human belly. That's what I mean by subtext.

That's what I mean by MD being "all subtext." The plot is introduced through the subtext. Yes it's very clever, but I feel that BV is even more clever by expressing the same types of powerful ideas in a way that doesn't obligate you to look for them. My own personal experience of art is that the less one has to analyze (and consequently verbalize), the more directly it communicates with you. Just my opinion, of course. :-)

 I would be really interested in what you have to say about the Freudian MD Experiment posts. Realizing that it is a theory in progress, of course.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

Moviemaking and dreaming. I have to confess that's not something I've ever thought about or noticed in the movie. Is there a discussion of it somewhere?

As far as Freud in MD, I did see that thread and it sounds very good. I had some quite long posts on the subject some time back that dissapeared in to the ether of the various incarnations of this BB, I suppose. They delt with TP, but MD takes place in the same universe, IMO.

That god damn trailer's more popular than Uncle's Day in a whorehouse!

No, you are wrong when you say Lynch has been too opaque. That's the substance of dreams, being opaque I mean.

Regarding the in depth-analysys of the movie, one can go mad on understanding every details but one time Italian contemporary writer Italo Calvino said that giving the dream explanation for a work of fiction as a novel or a film can be like having a lid for each kind of pot - meaning once you've given that work of fiction the explanation that it is a dream, you are over it and you can take a distance from it -, but when it is true that it was all about a dream you can give up being rational and seeking more and more details. You just have to surrender the fantastic power of this artwork and accept its mechanisms, and usually these mechanisms elude the concept of clearness.

Then, trying to see things that should have a meaning could spoil the pleasure of something that can be defined as a reverie or even an abstraction. If you try to comment on a painting by Kandinsky you can tell everything you want about it but the chances that you are really enjoying it are few (and the chances that you aren't getting it are many).

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Lost Highway, as well... I've been threatening to write that article for about two years now.  

 Great post!

 I totally agree, and I've certainly said similar things before, on this site and elsewhere....

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Well, I don't have the time to do the idea justice here, but it might be useful for me to quote what my girlfriend said after I first showed her MD, and we then went to a pub and chatted about it for several hours. I was saying something like "The first section of the film is like an idealised version of Betty/Diane's experiences". To which she said "ah, but is it her ideal, or Lynch's?" - in other words, is the film, up to the point when the cowboy says "time for you to wake up", Betty's fantasy, or Lynch's? After that point, is it "real", is it Betty's nightmare, or is it simply more of Lynch's own vision? In addition to all of this, I think LWAPOM is saying that parts of the movie which are ostensibly "real" might actually be scenes from some other movie. I felt this very strongly in the address book scene, which doesn't feel like a Lynch movie at all, more like a Tarantino one.....is Lynch touching upon the concept of moviemaking, and more specifically, Hollywood moviemaking, in this scene?

I get the impression that INLAND EMPIRE is going to pursue this idea even further

 I should state at this point that I make no claim to have a definitive "interpretation" of MD or any of Lynch's works, because to do so would be [a] Arrogant, [b] wrong, and [c] completely missing the beauty of DL's style of storytelling. It would be like looking at a Hopper painting and claiming to "know" exactly what the artist was trying to say. There are  multiple textures there, so there's scope for all of us to experience the narrative in our own way, in my opinion.