News
|
FILMSLost Highway (1997)This is the first David Lynch movie I've ever seen. Well, I saw Dune, but according to my friend Mike Gentrynoted Lynch fan, with whom I saw this filmDune don't count. After Lost Highway, Mike asked me what I thought, and when I told him, he said my description was the most succinct metaphor he ever heard about this film. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but just in case it is true, I'll repeat it here. This movie is a lot like if someone walked up to you, but says nothing. They just stare. After 10 seconds it's uncomfortable. After 20 seconds you're looking around for an escape. By half a minute you're ready to run away from the psycho who's just staring at you. If it's David Lynch's intention to make me feel uncomfortable, he's done that superbly with Lost Highway. There's nothing natural about this filmbe it the plot (a moebius strip with no explanation or apology) or the characters/actors (one actor playing two characters and two actors playing one character) or the stilted dialogue with unreasonable reactions to extraordinary events ("I don't know what's going on, but I'd say it's some spooky shit.") or the filming (nary a tracking shot to be seen, but rather static and dry and purposeful shot compositions). Mike pointed out a line which seemed incredibly funny at first, but the more we considered it, the more meaning it had. Fred (Pullman) wakes up and asks Renee (Arquette) how long she'd been awake, or something to that effect. She says a while. The neighbor's dog woke her. We can hear the dog barking outside. Fred confusedly says, "Who owns that dog?" It seems like such a throwaway lineand it is for the most part, as the film has nothing to do about waking up in the morning or dogsbut there seems to be a subtext here. I may be overanalyzing the line, but it seems as if Fred never remembers any of his neighbors owning dog. No one has recently bought a dog, says his tone. He's confused at why there's a dog barking when there normally isn't one. What the hell's going on? His confusion turns to uneasiness which turns to tension which then transfers to the audience, making us ever more paranoid about everything else that's important going on in the film. A subtle, yet effective, technique. I'll dispense with the plot summary, as it'll only confuse you. I know the events that took place, but I can't jigsaw them together in my brain correctly. To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what this film was about. If I were to hazard a guess, it's about a man who is deeply upset with the way his life is, does something drastic and is punished for it, only to create a new life which will be equally as punishing. Crap, I'm not even sure if that's right. Rule of thumb: if you don't have patience, don't bother with this film. From what I can gather Lynch seems to be very much like Stanley Kubrick, in that he makes the film he wants to make. And you'll need patience to watch said film because their pacing is deliberate and they both refuse to be rushed. They're also both unapologetic about their respective films. If you hate it, fine. If you love it, fine. But neither is going to hold your hand during the picture and tell you everything's going to be all right. Some may consider this arrogant and self-serving while others may consider it ballsy and exciting. Either way, it takes courage to do thisso, like it or hate it, you've got to give him credit. I'll have to see more of Lynch's work to decide whether I like him as a filmmaker or not. Though I'm guessing that I definitely have to be in the mood for such films, and they'll have to be viewed with the right company. Oh yeah, one last thing. Fair warning: the dude with no eyebrows will scare the crap out of you with his crazy talk. |