779 Mulholland Dr.

Message

#76 Post by **mfunk9786** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:13 pm

It does seem odd that the primary response to the announcement of this film is either griping about the film or griping about the artwork (as justified as the latter might be). This is maybe one of the 10 most exciting Criterion release announcements ever.

#77 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:17 pm

Is it? It seems inevitable that this would get a Blu-ray release stateside, and the extras all consist of interviews because Lynch has such a stranglehold on the supplemental content, so nothing academic or interpretive is present. Seems like a very poor Criterion release, as even though I love the film and am glad to see it on Blu-ray, I'm basically getting what any label would have worked up given Lynch's constraints

#78 Post by **zedz** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:26 pm

Unless you're fetishizing Being In The Collection to an unhealthy extent, I don't see this as an exciting release at all. The film has been constantly available since its initial release, a BluRay release (with very similar, but not quite so awful, cover art!) is already available for a fraction of the price from the UK, and as domino points out, the extras seem to be bog standard. To me, that, in a nutshell, is what we need less of from Criterion (though, like domino, I will be very happy to pick up this release).

I'm no great Scola fan, but the rediscovery of a potentially great film nobody was expecting (and hardly any of us have seen) is by far the most exciting announcement of the month.

danieltiger · #79 Post by **danieltiger** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:47 pm

zedz wrote:Unless you're fetishizing Being In The Collection to an unhealthy extent, I don't see this as an exciting release at all. The film has been constantly available since its initial release, a BluRay release (with very similar, but not quite so awful, cover art!) is already available for a fraction of the price from the UK, and as domino points out, the extras seem to be bog standard. To me, that, in a nutshell, is what we need less of from Criterion (though, like domino, I will be very happy to pick up this release).

I'm no great Scola fan, but the rediscovery of a potentially great film nobody was expecting (and hardly any of us have seen) is by far the most exciting announcement of the month.

I guess it just depends on what you think the mission statement is/should be for Criterion. If you think it's to rescue unknown releases for R1 then this is a pointless disc. If you're region-free and you think it's to only release things that haven't been released anywhere in the world, then almost everything Criterion releases is pointless. However, if you think that the mission is to collect under one imprint films that Criterion considers important, allowing of course for the limitations of rights deals, in the best editions they can, than this isn't pointless at all. At that point the only question is if you think that Criterion is right about the film being important, and if you think they're releasing the best edition they can.

#80 Post by **swo17** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:55 pm

I think it actually depends on whether you define "exciting" as not pointless.

danieltiger · #81 Post by **danieltiger** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:02 pm

Hah fair point, I probably misread the original comment as being a harsher take than it actually is. I do disagree that viewing a film you like being added to the collection as exciting means your "fetishizing being in the collection to an unhealthy extent."

#82 Post by **zedz** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:18 pm

danieltiger wrote:Hah fair point, I probably misread the original comment as being a harsher take than it actually is. I do disagree that viewing a film you like being added to the collection as exciting means your "fetishizing being in the collection to an unhealthy extent."

We weren't talking about defining this release as 'exciting', we were talking about defining it as "one of the 10 most exciting Criterion release announcements ever" - which I think is prima facie fetishizing unless that opinion can be backed up with some kind of objective measures.

flyonthewall2983 · #83 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:19 pm

domino harvey wrote:It seems inevitable that this would get a Blu-ray release stateside, and the extras all consist of interviews because Lynch has such a stranglehold on the supplemental content, so nothing academic or interpretive is present.

Just my opinion, but anything academic or interpretive would be useful only if the director is either dead or just doesn't participate. Even then, I'd much rather hear from the cast and crew (or archival interviews, documentaries, etc.). It would seem counter-intuitive to Lynch's work to have someone on a disc he's taking part of, explain everything you just watched in that manner.

#84 Post by **mfunk9786** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:26 pm

zedz wrote:
danieltiger wrote:Hah fair point, I probably misread the original comment as being a harsher take than it actually is. I do disagree that viewing a film you like being added to the collection as exciting means your "fetishizing being in the collection to an unhealthy extent."
We weren't talking about defining this release as 'exciting', we were talking about defining it as "one of the 10 most exciting Criterion release announcements ever" - which I think is prima facie fetishizing unless that opinion can be backed up with some kind of objective measures.

It's totally fetishization of being in the collection - I feel like the idea of it being really cool that Criterion chose to add a film/had the opportunity to add a film to the collection has faded as it's grown larger and larger though - if this were 2007 or 2008, people would've been going bananas even though it wouldn't have been a format bump.

FakeBonanza · #85 Post by **FakeBonanza** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:27 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
domino harvey wrote:It seems inevitable that this would get a Blu-ray release stateside, and the extras all consist of interviews because Lynch has such a stranglehold on the supplemental content, so nothing academic or interpretive is present.
Just my opinion, but anything academic or interpretive would be useful only if the director is either dead or just doesn't participate. Even then, I'd much rather hear from the cast and crew (or archival interviews, documentaries, etc.). It would seem counter-intuitive to Lynch's work to have someone on a disc he's taking part of, explain everything you just watched in that manner.

Huh? Certainly the presence of Rosenbaum and Saeed-Vafa's commentaries for both Close-up and The Wind Will Carry Us are more than welcome, and joined by interviews with Kiarostami at that. Ditto Rayns' participation in the special features for MOC's release of The World. These are only a few examples of how critical analysis can not only function alongside the director's own commentary , but expand upon, and even surpass it.

#86 Post by **zedz** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:30 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
zedz wrote:
danieltiger wrote:Hah fair point, I probably misread the original comment as being a harsher take than it actually is. I do disagree that viewing a film you like being added to the collection as exciting means your "fetishizing being in the collection to an unhealthy extent."
We weren't talking about defining this release as 'exciting', we were talking about defining it as "one of the 10 most exciting Criterion release announcements ever" - which I think is prima facie fetishizing unless that opinion can be backed up with some kind of objective measures.
It's totally fetishization of being in the collection - I feel like the idea of it being really cool that Criterion chose to add a film/had the opportunity to add a film to the collection has faded as it's grown larger and larger though - if this were 2007 or 2008, people would've been going bananas even though it wouldn't have been a format bump.

And that's totally fair enough. I'm glad it's here as well (if only as increasing the chance that the transfer is handled well). It could have crossed the 'exciting' threshold for me if they'd been able to include the TV pilot, or a bunch of deleted scenes, or some other, meatier extras.

djproject · #87 Post by **djproject** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:31 pm

A few thoughts ...

1) Was there not griping about cover art in the past here? (Last Year at Marienbad comes to mind. I'm sure there are others.) I like the lenticular theory and that is what it could be. Could it have been better? Of course. But the elements presented do fit the tone and the nature of the film. It was no different than the initial Universal 2002(?) DVD.

2) I would rather take a few supplements over no supplements (though I would like the supplements to be good ones ... *glares at Heaven's Gate*). As far as the "academic take" on it, I would think the closest would be the Lynch on Lynch excerpt/reprint*. Also this is one of the few Lynch films where a lot has been discussed about it and most of it has held up. While I know it would be greater to have supplements serve as "signposts" for deeper discussions, I have found that if you want to find out about something, you can find it.

*This would give more credence to the lenticular theory because looking at Eraserhead as a possible precedent, it used a booklet and with it a Digipak packaging. I can imagine it looking quite good as a Digipak, though the slipcover over a Scanovo case (a la Time Bandits) works well too.

3) Continuing on the discussion side of it, I've found that with Lynch, it ultimately doesn't matter "what it means" because pretty much all of his films - with obvious exceptions (The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and arguably Wild at Heart*) - function like dream films anyway. I like to be able to decipher it on my own and if I want to do it in the company of others, that's fine. (This is actually why I really enjoy Eyes Wide Shut, which I think is much more of a nod to Lynch from Stanley Kubrick than The Shining was.)

*We all know about Dune =D

warren oates · #88 Post by **warren oates** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:20 pm

djproject wrote: I've found that with Lynch, it ultimately doesn't matter "what it means" because pretty much all of his films - with obvious exceptions (The Elephant Man, The Straight Story and arguably Wild at Heart*) - function like dream films anyway. I like to be able to decipher it on my own and if I want to do it in the company of others, that's fine. (This is actually why I really enjoy Eyes Wide Shut, which I think is much more of a nod to Lynch from Stanley Kubrick than The Shining was.)[/b] =D

I wish I'd said this to domino earlier in the thread. I agree that it feels way more appropriate to group Mulholland Dr. with films like Hour of the Wolf and Eyes Wide Shut than with something like Memento.

knives · #89 Post by **knives** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 12:35 am

He didn't lump it in with Memento though. You're putting that idea in his mouth. I thought his comparisons (and definition) was very apt.

oh yeah · #90 Post by **oh yeah** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:44 am

Mulholland Dr. seems to me, at least superficially, to fall into a group of films from about 1998-2001 which questioned the nature of reality and often thematically could be summarized as "what is real?" or "reality isn't real", etc. Many of these films have endings which call into question the reality of what just unfolded, if not outright reveal it as a dream or fantasy of some sort. There was also often an undertone of questioning American values, especially suburban or bourgeoisie values, and revealing some sort of dark underside to this. Examples include: Fight Club, Existenz, Donnie Darko, Pi, Memento, Vanilla Sky, The Matrix, The Truman Show, Eyes Wide Shut, etc. (You could also say Sam Mendes films like American Beauty and Revolutionary Road belong in here). Unsurprisingly, it's precisely the more ambiguous and subtle of these films, like Mulholland Dr. and especially Eyes Wide Shut, which remain the most interesting and successful to this day (to this critic).

cinemartin · #91 Post by **cinemartin** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:06 am

I think you could also add De Palma's Femme Fatale to that group.

djproject · #92 Post by **djproject** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:50 am

knives wrote:He didn't lump it in with Memento though. You're putting that idea in his mouth. I thought his comparisons (and definition) was very apt.

I don't often talk about Memento. But when I do, I say it is not a dream film =D

MoonlitKnight · #93 Post by **MoonlitKnight** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:51 am

Dare I ask, is this release still going to be... censored?

Given all that one can now see on the 'Net, it just seems rather pointless (especially since the same wasn't done for "Blue Velvet").

#94 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:10 am

From what I understand, Lynch assured Harring when filming that audiences wouldn't be able to see that part of her body and when he realized adjusting the contrast on a home video release could show what was meant to be hidden, he kept his word by fogging the image. I can't see how anyone could be opposed to this

J M Powell · #95 Post by **J M Powell** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:18 pm

The problem with the DVD transfer was always that the "fogging" was really obvious and distracting. It looked like what it was: a digital blob floating around the screen as Harring moved. I'm sure Criterion will redo this for the new transfer in a subtler fashion.

Gregory · #96 Post by **Gregory** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:31 pm

I hope so. Lynch said, "First - if the shot is timed correctly you should not be able to tell one bit if Laura's pubic hair has been blurred," so that was his intention and it probably needs to be redone. It probably needn't look strange or distracting.

What I've wondered about this is: if Harring had such hesitations about that part of her body being shown, then why was the scene filmed that way in the first place? Did she object to it before or during shooting, and this agreement that Lynch was the compromise to get her to do the scene? If she was uncomfortable enough about it that Lynch had to make these plans to "protect her" (his phrase), why show the full frontal nudity in the first place? Was there an aesthetic/creative reason to reveal that much for audiences who saw it in theaters as many of us did? If not, then it's hard not to think of the scene as being gratuitous and even a little exploitative. If so, then understandably people will not want it to be (self-)censored because it necessarily changes the scene if her body was exposed to that extent for an important reason initially and then this was changed for the DVD and VHS releases.

Zot! · #97 Post by **Zot!** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:50 pm

It seems simply put in place to keep the unadulterated image from being circulated electronically for obvious reasons. The consumers of the internet being different than paying art-house patrons.

Gregory · #98 Post by **Gregory** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:32 pm

It was a general-release film and not something mainly seen by a small art-house niche, but I get that the nudity is seedier when taken out of the context of the film and placed on a "Mr. Skin"-type site, but I think my questions still stand. This is the only case like this that I know of in which an actor and director didn't just stand behind the decision to do a nude scene and not worry about still images circulating in magazines or the internet. Thus the fact that these special agreements were made makes me think that Harring may have had real hesitations about the result of the frontal nudity being objectification of her or something along those lines. So why reveal so much in the first place? Giving Lynch the benefit of the doubt that it was not just gratuitous nudity and that the visible pubic area served some other purpose in the scene (say, giving a different feel to the sexual desire that was manifest in the scene), then that's an important enough reason to prefer to be able to see it uncensored as it was in theaters. That and the matter of the blurring looking obvious and distracting, and all the more so in HD on displays where changes like that can be seen more clearly than before. As Lynch explained, the difference was meant to be barely perceptible to viewers. If that had been the case, it probably wouldn't even be the minor issue that it is, but it was pretty obvious on the DVD as I recall and J M Powell pointed out, so perhaps that's part of why so much attention has been drawn to it.

knives · #99 Post by **knives** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:42 pm

First off this is a tad silly question to ask as it is their decisions and it's entitled to ask for more reason than that. Secondly, yes, other directors have done this. For example Miike has had several of his films blurred thanks to censorship laws in Japan that he knew well of and thus (working within your argument) Miike provides an exterior example of somebody doing something for the purpose of it being censored. Of course we don't even have to go that far since based on Herring and Lynch's own comments, some of which have been brought up here today, it seems like Herring gave permission for obscured nudity, but it was noticed in post that the nudity wasn't fully obscured so we got what we got as a result.

Gregory · #100 Post by **Gregory** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:13 pm

Sorry, knives, if it seems silly or "entitled" of me to discuss a trivial but still (to me) interesting case of self-censorship in an appropriate thread on a movie discussion forum, but this is a question that very many fans of Lynch have raised and discussed over the years. I never attacked him for his decision or acted entitled to be given explanations, so excuse me?
I said only that this was the only example I knew of, not that there were absolutely no other similar cases. But a director working within a system of Japanese censorship laws, knowing that something will end up being blurred out due to restrictions on pornography/nudity, is a different kind of scenario than blurring something voluntarily for reasons that have nothing to do with such laws. The creative decisions that Lynch was making for both versions of the film were the point of the questions I was raising.
There was a lot of discussion at the time of the film's release, at least in my experience, about the scene in question, it's purpose and meaning, and whether it was gratuitous or shot the way that it was for the central purpose of being provocative.
By the way, the name is Harring.

779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.

Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.