More about this DVD  •  DVD Info  •  Movie Main Page  •  Message Board

I suspect that most reviews of Mulholland Drive, David Lynch's latest surreal mind-fuck of a movie, will spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to explain what the hell the thing is about. I don't see much point in that. The way I see it, some movies are beyond rational explanation. They should be approached like a good song whose lyrics, if you were to write them out on paper, don't make any sense at all, but when performed by the right singer in the right tone with just the right music, form a greater emotional truth that is more important than the conventions of traditional narrative storytelling. The audience will either respond to such a thing or they won't, and that's all that can be said about it. As such, I'm not going to try to explain or interpret the multi-layered, twisty plot about the amnesiac brunette and the naïve Hollywood starlet who stumble into a bizarre Nancy-Drew-meets-Blue-Velvet psychosexual mystery in the city of dreams. Nor will I try to convert those people who adamantly hate this type of movie into changing their minds. What I can do, however, is provide a little background context for the piece.

To understand what Mulholland Drive is, you must first understand what it was originally intended to be. David Lynch created the story as the beginning of a primetime television series for the ABC network. Despite their shoddy treatment of him after the cancellation of Twin Peaks, ABC executives somehow managed to lure Lynch back with promises of more freedom. Inspired by the possibilities of another long-form narrative, Lynch acquiesced and shot a 2-hour pilot episode. When he screened the finished pilot, ABC hated it and instantly cancelled all plans for future episodes. The official reason was that the program was "too violent" for television (this is the network that brings us NYPD Blue, mind you), but industry buzz claimed that it was actually too weird and the folks at ABC just didn't understand it. ABC attempted to reedit the episode behind Lynch's back with the intention of airing it as a TV movie of the week, but even those plans were scrapped and the whole project fell into limbo.

Jumping ahead a couple of years, Lynch regained the rights to his work and secured funding from a European production company to shoot a new ending that would wrap up the story. The new footage was decidedly R-rated in nature, and this reworked theatrical version of the movie played to positive response at the Cannes film festival, where it won Lynch an award for Best Director, followed later by an Oscar nomination for the same title. ABC has no comment on the matter, but I suspect that someone is kicking themselves for their timidity. How exactly did Lynch change the television episode into a feature film? Having seen the original TV pilot on a bootleg.... uhhhh... private copy, I think I can point out some of the differences without spoiling any plot.

The first 90 minutes are essentially identical to the original version. The jitterbug prologue before the opening credits is new, the credits themselves are presented in a different font and style (the old ones were better), and there are several minor additions and deletions spread throughout various scenes, but little of considerable consequence. The biggest single change in this portion of the movie is the reinsertion of the Winkie's diner sequence and the introduction of the scary guy hanging out at the dumpster. These scenes appear in the script for the TV pilot, and I assume were shot during the original production, but were presumably cut for time. I'm glad to finally see this footage. Its absence was a significant loss; it clarifies some of the story's themes and without it the scary guy's appearance later does not make any sense (not that he makes much sense anyway). The movie's first act ends almost precisely where the pilot did (two brief shots have been shuffled to later in the film), followed by 45 minutes of all new footage. Even a first-time viewer can distinguish the breaking-off point. It is marked by a very graphic sex scene that would obviously never air on television.

So, knowing all of this history behind the project, how did the movie turn out? As a longtime Lynch fan, I have to admit to some mixed feelings. I honestly think this could have made a fabulous television series had the network not chickened out, but Lynch's efforts to finish the story are somewhat uneven. The TV pilot was clearly not intended for a quick resolution. All of the characters are just starting the first part of their arcs and numerous plot strands are introduced but never followed up, obviously requiring significantly more time to play out. Rather than even attempt to tie up all of the loose ends, Lynch's solution is to yank the rug out from under the viewer and take the entire story in a radically different direction. The transition is more than a little jarring. At first, it seems as though the second half of the movie has nothing at all to do with the first half, and the whole thing will leave a viewer scratching their head trying to figure it out.

Lynch is famous for this sort of thing, of course, so his existing fans shouldn't be too surprised. In fact, if I have any serious disappointment with the movie it is that the wildly surreal ending is largely recycled from Lynch's own Lost Highway. He grafts the prominent themes from that movie onto this one (whereas they were barely hinted at during the first half of the film), and spells them out using the exact same symbolism and cinematic language. It seems as though Lynch, in his desperate attempt to complete the film, merely reached back into his old bag of tricks to throw something together. I can't help feeling at least a little sense of redundancy at the effort.

I also think that, in making the transition to feature film, Lynch should have trimmed more footage from the TV pilot. The movie could stand to lose at least half an hour off its beginning. Robert Forster originally had two scenes in the pilot, but here has been reduced to a one-scene cameo that is really quite irrelevant to the overall story. There is no reason for his role to remain in the film at all. There are several other examples like this, scenes whose removal might have strengthened the film, but which Lynch became attached to and couldn't let go.

That said, this is still a fascinating movie from one of our most consistently innovative filmmakers. Even if not Lynch's best work, it is still a solid effort with more ambition and genuine vision than any other film that came out in the same year. The movie's first half is a slow but intriguing mystery drama that is certainly less alienating in tone than the likes of Lost Highway, and although the second half may throw many viewers for a loop, when given thought it does make some sense. Analyzing it too closely can drive you mad with frustration, but that's half the fun in this type of movie. Every seemingly valid interpretation will have at least a few loopholes. I see the film as broken into three distinct parts, not just two, and feel that the woman from Apartment 12 is a much more important character than we would believe at first. Others may disagree, and strong cases can be made for multiple theories.

What Lynch does better than just about any other filmmaker working today is create startling images with the power to indelibly burn themselves into the viewer's subconscious. Mulholland Drive has a number of such scenes. The "Llorando" sequence, for one, is the most achingly beautiful piece of film I've seen in years. And Betty's first audition manages to outdo the similar Bobby Peru scene in Wild at Heart for sheer creepiness and dark eroticism, something I thought no movie could accomplish. For those, and for the many other striking moments that transcend the boundaries of conventional filmmaking, Mulholland Drive is indeed a minor masterpiece that I foresee myself returning to repeatedly, hoping to learn something new each time, as I do with Lynch's best movies. I wish I could say as much for every film that I see.

"Silencio."

Video: How Does The Disc Look?

Even though Mulholland Drive was originally produced for television, it was shot with 16:9 HDTV broadcast in mind. As a result, it translated to the widescreen theatrical format fairly well. Compared directly to my full-frame pilot episode tape, the approximately 1.78:1 anamorphically enhanced DVD has noticeably more picture information on the sides of the frame, with a smidgen cropped off the top and bottom. However, it seems to me that the photography was primarily composed for the 4:3 ratio, with the 16:9 area protected as an afterthought. The majority of the extra picture information appears on the right side of the picture, often leaving the framing awkward and unbalanced. The vertical matting is also a bit tight at the top and bottom of the image, but not nearly as bad as the 1.85:1 theatrical screening that I saw.

Although Lynch is an exceptional visual stylist, he was working with a TV production budget for most of the filming and that sometimes shows through in the photography. The DVD transfer has nice textures and terrific color quality, especially the luscious red of painted fingernails and lipstick, but the image is rather contrasty and has unimpressive shadow detail. It looks good overall, certainly leagues better than the multi-generational VHS copy of the pilot I'd seen, but does not have as much vibrancy or depth as many other feature films.

A note of warning: As confirmed from a chat on his web site, Lynch instructed that one scene in the film, at the 99 minute mark, be censored with optical blurring to obscure Laura Harring's nether regions. I find this news disturbing, but in practice the blockage is barely visible unless you have the brightness on your display turned up to obscenely high levels. The scene in question is cloaked in heavy shadows anyway, so really there was not much need for this action in the first place. I have to ask who Lynch thought he was protecting. Did Harring ask him to do this, and if so why did she get naked for the film in the first place? Or was Lynch just feeling guilty about shooting the scene that way gratuitously? Is one brief glimpse of her pubic hair really more objectionable than the extensive breast exposure we see here and elsewhere? I just don't get it.

Audio: How Does the Disc Sound?

The movie's soundtrack is available in both Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 surround. Neither is exactly reference quality. Surround usage is limited if present at all. The audio varies between dull-sounding periods to crisply recorded and extremely well mixed passages. The fidelity of the "Sixteen Reasons" scene is outstanding, while elsewhere the sound mix is a little murky with some harsh dialogue. Again, this seems to be more an artifact of the production circumstances than a disc transfer problem. I'd even say that the soundtrack improves when we switch to the latter half of the movie.

The jitterbug opening is extremely loud, much more so than the rest of the movie, with rocking deep bass. There are other portions of the movie as well with extensive use of the low-end. Some of it requires a better subwoofer than I have available. Other parts sound overly thumpy and artificially pumped up. Does a single fist punch really need that much bass? Perhaps in a Die Hard movie, but not really here. Lynch has always paid keen attention to sound design and there is some good work here (the intense ending will have you climbing over the back of your chair), but he has done better in previous films.

Spanish and French subtitles are available, along with English captions for the hearing impaired. The disc does not have true closed captioning.

Supplements: What Goodies Are There?

David Lynch is known to dislike DVD supplemental material, so we don't get much of anything here. There's an excellent theatrical trailer in non-anamorphic letterbox, and a few pages of cast & crew bios on the disc (Lynch's bio is particularly revealing). That's about it. The case also includes a printed card with "David Lynch's 10 Clues to Unlocking This Thriller". The clues are things like, "Notice the appearances of the red lampshade" and "Where is Aunt Ruth?" They are vague and cryptic, and frankly a little condescending. I'd rather have done without them at all.

Nowhere is the history of the project even mentioned, much less analyzed. Most annoying, the disc does not even have chapter stops. Lynch has some half-baked theory about film being "a continuum" that should not be stopped or broken into pieces. While that may sound all well and good to him, it's rather insulting to those of us who want to study his films. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Lynch. Literally.

In a move clearly inspired by the movie's themes, Universal is releasing two separate editions of the film with different sets of cover art, each featuring a different lead actress. The discs themselves are identical, only the cover art varies. Had they been really smart, they would have made the case's paper insert reversible so that a buyer could switch it at their choosing. I guess doing it that way wouldn't sucker collectors into buying the movie twice, though.

DVD-ROM Exclusives: What do you get when you pop the disc in your PC?

No ROM extras have been included.

Parting Thoughts

Mulholland Drive is certain to divide viewers between those who have a taste for experimental cinema and those who do not. The film has, oddly, managed to convert some notable David Lynch detractors (read: Roger Ebert) into its favor, but in my experience it plays best to those who are already part of Lynch's camp. In fact, some of the people I've spoken to about the movie have gotten downright indignant in their hatred for it, as though a story that does not explain itself in no uncertain terms were somehow insulting them. Not to sound too snobbish, but honestly this attitude saddens me. Personally, I feel exactly the opposite.