It is really simple.

I am not entertained by it. It is not entertaining.

You may argue that it is beautifully shot, that there are great actors in it, that the story has a dreamlike quality, that it is imaginative...But none of it matters when you're simply bored watching it.

I like a lot of the things that Drive has, great acting, interesting scenes, bold cinematography. But one thing is sorely lacking; a plot line that makes sense.

I refuse to do the work of a director. It is his job to make the story line interesting, to make me engaged in it.

I had the exact same gripe with Donnie Darko. I do not want to read all sorts of extra stuff to understand what is going on. I want SELF CONTAINTED MOVIES, and yes, I know all movies are intertextual in nature, but when the context is particular to the writer, it becomes self-indulgent and BORING.

I just lacked the emotion of what i normally expect from Lynch.

That's it. Flame away.

I'm bored and quite frankly dying to flame you but I need a bit more to work with. It seems to me that it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Sigh.

I don't want to sound opportunistic but do you have any David Lynch memorabilia cluttering up your cupboards that you can no longer bring yourself to look at in your blind fury at this perceived self-indulgence? Perhaps you acquired some rare, hitherto unseen Mulholland Drive press stills before you saw the film? I'll pay good money...

Apologies if I've wandered off the topic but since you were so refreshingly candid I thought you'd welcome an honest exchange. I cry sometimes.

Faceintheleaves, you make me laugh with your insults but could you cut this poor newbie a break?

 Anyway, I would agree with everything you said but about Inland Empire, not Mulholland Dr. IE is unexplainable for the majority of filmwatchers, or if it is, it just takes too much work and I really didn't enjoy watching it. Mulholland Dr., however, I really enjoyed and it can be explained, you just have to be intelligent. I'm not too sure I understand it fully, I've only seen it once as of yet, but I just sat back and enjoyed it the first time, the acting, the music, the cinematography, and when I get round to rewatching it I'll try and work out exactly what is going on. I think the fact that you mentioned Donnie Darko doesn't help your case. Donnie Darko is a great film that makes you think, but not too much, it's really not that complicated. If you didn't like that for these reasons then I really don't think you should bother watching MD or Lost Highway etc.

I always thought if a film was good enough I could give it the attention and thought it needs, now I think otherwise. IE is just too much hard work. MD is a really fine film. There's more humour in that robbery scene than in the whole of IE. The plot of MD isn't so hard to follow.

Can't really flame you for having different taste in narrative style. Is that what you came for?

p.s. Have you even checked out www.mulhollanddrive.net? It may clarify things for you. Don't look at is as outside reading. It's all in the movie, some people just need a little guiding to know what to look for in order to make sense. 

Oh, and whatever you do don't watch Inland Empire. It makes Mulholland Dr. look as simple as a nursery rhyme.

Welcome to the board!

(edited for clarity) 

Will do giospurs. When I logged in earlier all manner of craziness was afoot and 'Why I Don't Like Mulholland Dr' seemed a slightly suspect way of introducing oneself on a Twin Peaks/David Lynch board. If I was being neurotic I apologise.   

I didn't like Mulholland Drive the first time I saw it and I can't remember why now. It's in my David Lynch all-time top three with Fire Walk With Me and Inland Empire. I agree that Donnie Darko isn't particularly complicated. All the answers are in Roberta Sparrow's book, which is reproduced in the special features. That's another of my favourite films, incidentally. 

Having seen Donnie Darko in the theater, I had to wait until I read the foreward in the screenplay to find out it was religious or something. If I hadn't, I never would have known, and I still haven't bothered to find out what that's all about. The movie stands alone as a cohesive story about time travel, no more confusing than Back to The Future.   That spin is kind of pretentious of the director, I think, but he's a pretentious kind of guy.

Now Lynch would be the first to tell you his films are all self contained. He wants you to work for it. Yes, that is irritating to some folks.  If you can't stand the heat, though...

I hear Alvin & The Chipmunks is pretty self-contained... maybe that won't make your brain hurt.

Funny how when you can understand it, other people "just have to be intelligent" but when you don't get it, it's the movie's fault for being "unexplainable."  Pretty narcissistic.

And I agree with Psycho... if you don't like movies that make you think, go watch Iron Man (even though that piece of trash should make you think since it's so racist and inflammatory).

Everyone has their own boundaries for how much time you have to put in a film, for me, I had enough time for Mulholland Dr. because I really liked it even though I didn't understand it before doing some reading. INLAND EMPIRE I didn't because I felt like I wasted 3 hours, of which I can't say I enjoyed 5 mins. And I can confidently say most people would agree with me; even on a Lynch forum there's enough people who didn't 'get'/enjoy it. I felt I had to bring up being "intelligent" when you watch a film, because the original poster said that they didn't understand/couldn't be bothered with Donnie Darko.
 

No, intelligence is being able to draw logical connections between events, ideas,and being adept at abstract problem solving in real life. Psychologists say that the more often you can make a narrative that makes sense of a dream you just had, the more intelligent you are.

Where better to apply these theories than watching seemingly nonsensical movies?

DL's films are often dreamlike. (Didn't the red room scene in Ep3 come from a dream?) This opens the question of whether DL knows exactly what his films "mean". Remember Mike Anderson's interview where he said DL viewed a scene and said "I'll bet that's what I meant". I suspect DL knows a lot of stuff but keeps it quiet but also doesn't know the significance of some stuff (or at least only gets to figure it out - partially - afterwards.

What do you think? 

Well, what do I know, but I'm pretty certain that Lynch doesn't always fully know what he's doing while doing it. He follows his intuition, vision, his ideas that he falls in love with, and one thing leads to another, things start shaping themselves. I guess he has said this himself, something about that he doesn't start with a theme in mind, but just lets the theme come out kind of like on it's own. Maybe he starts to see what his work is really about during the process and maybe he gets it himself afterwards, but not in the way like some fans on boards like this think about it, like every little detail has to have some hidden meaning.

And by the way, if he really is working like this, he's not the only one. I, for one, do so. So maybe I'm just projecting myself and don't even know what the hell I'm talking about.

I liked your last post.

Although I found this thread pretty useless, I totally agree about what you said about the creative process of Lynch, you and many others (myself, for example).

I think that a director that can do such things (not having a pre-structured scheme and developing things by consulting your instincts and your unconcscious only) can be truly defined as an artist. And I'm not talking only about the writing, because in fact I'm pretty sure that David Lynch had his major work during the shooting and not during the writing. With IE we had the confirmation that he didn't have a script written before the shooting, but I'm sure he pretty much acted the same way for his other movies as well. That's freedom, that's creativity at the highest form. That's art.

That's why I don't get why you told us you didn't like MD. You simply didn't get it. But, in my opinion, not getting things means you obviously have an interest to take them in consideration. Things that do that to yourself are simply beautiful. Hence, you liked Mulholland Dr. Admit it! hehehe, sorry here I was joking...

or wasn't I? Who knows? 

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

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

"What credit card do you want to put that on?"
"Caash, prease."

Well, you know, there are sooo many ways a director can write a screenplay.

There are those who make storyboards (which, in my opinion, is a way of killing a movie's ability to be creative) because you make a pre-established project even before the producers say "yes" and they kind of put the screenplay in the hands of an anonymous writer without caring of how the dialogues and the subplots will come out. But, hey, I'm not judging as someone else here... I mean, I'm pretty sure that Spielberg has been working that way since Close Encounters and if that's a way to make things more clear in your head in order to make financial projects on how much the film will cost to you in terms of visuals and special effects, well, they can suit themselves and I'm okay with it. I'm not a fan of blockbuster movies, but once in a while I found some of that universe quite entertaining because they're harmless or just for personal reasons, like Fast and Furious. Crush me if you want, but I just love any movie that involves car races or stuff like that. I don't make exceptions, so why can't I just be a fan of film d'auteurs and at the same time enjoy crap movies? Because I don't deny that those films are crap if compared to Bergman's masterpieces. Does that make me a non-snob, alas a movie apathetic that just pigs himself on everything that is exciting in his own way while it goes on on the big or small screen?

There are those who plan every single scene in each aspect before starting to write the actual screenplay (I think that stage is called 'treatment' in the anglosaxon universe) and there are those who just make an outline of where, generally, the movie will go and start diving into a writing that has as most poignant feature the improvisation. Then there are those who just go right into the screenplay writing process just making projects in their minds or not making them at all, taking a leap of faith in their own ability to make your instincts and intuition make sense in a personalized structure. I think Lynch pretty much belongs to the last category.

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

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Now I'm puzzled. Mr. Silencio, was your first post in this thread pointed at me or was it pointed at the starter of this thread, or to Evenreven, Montana or some one else? I do like Mulholland Dr. I also like "crap movies". And "art movies". I like all the movies that I find good.

 And, Mr. Silencio, I liked your posts in this thread too.

 This whole message board thing is pretty strange. Sometimes I wonder why I read them, and even post at them. But I guess it's kinda fun.

 I totally agree with you. It makes you realise having a shared interest doesn't necessarily mean you have anything in common. I visit this board in the vain hope there'll be news about DVD releases or (sigh) the FWWM deleted scenes and also because it makes me laugh (in a good way).  

I've just been writing the same thing in a different thread. I'd say it makes you normal. Don't worry about  what anybody else thinks.
 

FrannyCKY are you out there?

 I pretty much agree with you on Mulholland. It feels like an expanded pilot episode to me,even if that expansion of the initial pilot has worked pretty well.

 I don't get giospurs preferrign Mulholland to INLAND EMPIRE at all! INLAND is just a much richer film than MD for me.

I'm talking to anybody that reads me!

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

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

I actually find MD to be very emotional, certainly much more so than Lost Highway.

Ultimately, I do think it is flawed, and most of its flaws are due to its origin as a TV pilot. I also think some of the comic stuff doesn't really work, eg. the wife/pool man/jewelry scene (if I read that in a script, I would think it was garbage). Some of the scenes are aimless and don't do anything. The scene involving the hitman is a good little short, but it also doesn't really add to the overall story. After Silencio, when the new footage takes over, I think it has a single minded coherence and that's what makes it great.  

"What credit card do you want to put that on?"
"Caash, prease."