[Ebrey]

There were actually a few kernels of ideas in the axe's David Lynch thread, even if they were outnumbered 10:1 by crap. I think we could have a good discussion about it.

Someone in that thread said that films that are not demanding are demeaning, which I strongly disagree with. I rarely find any films demanding, narratively (though they might be emotionally draining). If the plot is confusing, I assume that I am not meant to understand it to give it a dream-like quality or other effect. The movie Syriana, for example, was far too complex to be understood in one viewing to give the viewer a feeling for how complicated the Mideast is. I have no interest in piecing together the plot of confusing movies.

Trying to piece together a story from nonsensical imagery is less satisfying than simply writing my own story. Most adults would rather draw a picture than complete a "connect the dots" diagram, and the more annoying art films are "connect the dots" narratives.

There are times when I care about the characters enough to try to understand the symbolism of a dream sequence, for instance. But caring about the characters requires clear, powerful character development to have already happened. Films rarely have enough time to include clear character development and oblique dream sequences, though TV does: the Sopranos does a great job of it. I've come to think that TV can be experimental far more effectively than film, which is why it's a shame that movies generally take more chances.

Let's continue the interesting discussion that was going on, without the hatin'.

[Intentionally Wrong]

I first watched Mulholland Drive because of this review.

Actually, it wasn't the review that did it; it was a single paragraph in that review. The paragraph in question wasn't this one:

[rf]

The bit about connecting the dots is a good articulation of what I've always thought about this. The thing that bothers me most about it is when people say that these puzzles make a movie "smart" or for the proverbial "thinking man." I dunno, I think I'm as smart as the next guy (well, smarter, but the full extent of my ego isn't necessary for this argument!), but I like to apply my mind more to science, philosophy, and to some extent history/social science, which feel like engaging with the real world rather than some artist's cute puzzle.

I'd also object to claims that this makes me a philistine. Much of the literary canon and other "accepted" good art has layers of meaning that are difficult to catch, but they usually also have stylistic or dramatic virtues (often both, though not always) that are apparent to most reasonably intelligent people upon first reading. More importantly, these layers of meaning usually just add to some more obvious primary message upon discovery, which is entirely different than the "this movie has a secret!" model, where everything looks entirely different upon realizing a few details, and doesn't change appearance much after that. A good novel is a mine that yields lots of gold at first, and keeps giving (if at a slower rate) as you continue to dig. These "gated" movies are more like a secret vein of gold buried under a thick layer of dirt. It's the amount of gold that matters in the end, and it's hard to argue that the extra dirt is an aesthetic virtue.
_________________

[CubaLibre]

Movies specifically are not the greatest at presenting plots, but rather at presenting action - physical movement. This includes carefully nuanced facial expressions and body poses ("acting," I guess) as well as car chases and what have you. They are not so great at imparting information, but rather mood or emotion.

From the point of view of creating fiction, then, extremely complex plots in movies are pretty useless, not to mention slightly masturbatory, unless they exist only to present a mood and are not expected to be digested. Syriana and Pirates 3 are good examples.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[Mr Mustache]

I am not really sure what is being debated here. This is either because a multi faceted debate is being reduced to simple binaries, or that there isn't a clear understanding of what "art film" actually entails. CubaLibre makes some good points, but it is not clear what he is responding to.

Anyway, hopefully I will have more time to discuss this tomorrow.
_________________
The people are like wool to me

[PianoMap]

[aderack]

[wackodave]

I think the hint the guy might be talking about is the bit at the very start of Mulholland Drive where the camera falls onto a pillow. Representing someone falling asleep and signifying the start of the dream.

Edit: Just watched it again, the camera sort of hovers around the bed before settling down on the pillow. It's right at the end of the dance bit at the start of the film. Watching it now it's really obvious but I didn't pay any attention to it the first time I watched the film. I'm not very good at noticing these things so you might have known about it already. Seems to fit though.

[rabite gets whacked!]

[parkbench]

[CubaLibre]

TV to me is a weird beast because of this very distinction I've laid down. The reason movies aren't that great at portraying a logical narrative isn't just because of their short length, but that's part of it. Take away the length restriction and you've got the potential for narrative, but it's still stuck in this visual and distant medium. Take away the big screen and you lose a lot of the intimacy of movies (you want to talk about The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - talk about closeups). Not to mention that the time constraints under which TV shows are made forgoes a lot of the advantages film gains at the expense of theater's vitality: namely, editing and cinematography, the advantages of "perfection," the fact that a movie is exactly the same each time you watch it, and the director gets to control his audience's perspective.

I don't really like TV, in the end. The "strong narrative" shows like The Sopranos and what have you never really do anything for me. They always have too much plot and not enough mood, and no matter how earnest their subject matter and how fantastic their acting they always end up being giant fanfictions.

Incidentally, the best anime alleviates a lot of these concerns. They're typically limited to a single season, which makes them merely very long movies; the fact that they are animated frees up the directors to do interesting things with editing and cinematography even under TV's time constraints; and, for whatever reason, Japanese animators are more apt to let plot slide and focus more on mood.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[rabite gets whacked!]

CubaLibre, I wouldn't go blaming lack of interesting cinematography, editing or just general creativity in TV entirely on time and budget constraints. The medium as a whole has to operate profitably, so that stuff is all discouraged because it turns away viewers and gets shows canceled.
_________________

[CubaLibre]

You've got a point, but either way, it ain't in there. So.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[Ebrey]

[internisus]

ONCE AGAIN: I AM DRUNK SO THIS POST CAN BE DISMISSED AUTONOMICALLY

I love Mulholland Drive very, very much. This is probably because mood, music, and intuition are more important forces to me than substantial and credible plot in film. It's a very powerful movie for me.






I guess that's all I have to say.

It's not about caring about the characters or being involved in the sexuality or the very intense dream symbolism. There's simply a musical thematic undertone to the film that grabs the hell out of me, regardless of whether I will ever solve its puzzle.



I suppose it helps that it has such an amazingly moody score. I should also mention that mood[i] is infinitely more important to me than plot in film. As such, the score for Mulholland Drive more or less makes the film for me. I feel like I'm painting myself stupid here, but that's mainly how it is.

Nonetheless, I think videogames often employ film constructions and dynamics incorrectly. The kind of power that forces me to pledge myself to a film like this is largely absent in videogames. The closest one I can think of is Xenogears; think, for instance, of the music in the scenes where id appears early on. "The One Who Is Torn Apart" on the soundtrack. That shit just [i]works.

[rf]

vision:
I agree, but is this really a failure of TV specifically? A serialized work may be unique in that it can respond to demand while still being created, but creators in nearly any medium won't get their works funded if they're not likely to make enough money, outside of some patronage system. Is there something particularly bad about changing in mid-creation?

internisius:
(since my fanboyness obligates me to respond to all posts involving Xenogears) The style of Japanese RPGs, with their length plus their audiovisuals, has always made me wonder if it'd be cool to have really, really long movies made. I guess they'd be kind of like strung-together episodes of TV, at least with the kind of production values they'd have to have (but let's put aside the huge problems with this whole thing as a business model, for now...). But they'd be intended for consumption all at once, maybe with some sort of rituals for giving people breaks/intermissions/otherwise making the experience bearable. It'd feel like much more of an exciting, communal event--the feeling of going to witness some complete, extensive novel-like creation, rather than a short and stylistically heavy confection like most movies. And things like that instance of a song playing for the first time would be so much more impactful--if you'd already been watching for a few hours and something hit you as if things were just "getting started." I dunno, maybe this would suck. And I'm not sure how it's relevant to the thread.

Edit for strange, wishy-washy connection to thread topic: I guess your post reminded me of this idea because one of the major characteristics of dreams is their feeling of "significance." Many movies can't achieve this feeling simply because they're so short and feel like boxed-in creations, little shaved poodles tied in tight restrictive bows (if you'll forgive the image). While dreams range at will between widely different tones and situations, and often feel like some complete message from your psyche (whether or not they really are) that draws on the full range of your worldly knowledge. A long movie could much more easily accomplish this all-encompassing, larger-than-you feel.

General thread response:
Despite my sort of bitter post above, I do think the desire for clear narrative in films gets way too out of hand sometimes. But I don't think that's inconsistent with saying that movies should be "puzzles"--in fact, it's part of the same line of thought. It's precisely because movies are about sense and mood, not the kind of stuff you could get out of a script or a written summary, that a puzzle-like film would be so disappointing even upon cracking it. The final prize, a fully coherent narrative, is not itself the thing that you should be looking for anyway. Good incoherence is better than bad coherence, but "seeming incoherence" can be even worse. Of course, many films can be seen as either "seemingly" or "truly" incoherent, so the distinction largely rides on whether the biggest fans see the movie as an experience or as an IQ test.

(As I mentioned in the movie thread, the obsession with coherence seemed especially out-of-hand to me in reviews of Paprika. I left the theater feeling like I had viewed something artistically well-created, and that was all that mattered; I had no desire to learn what was "really happening" in some of the less literal scenes, as many reviewers did. It wasn't like those scenes were meaningless masturbation or pretentious randomness. They had a clear artistic and aesthetic goal, it just happened to be something other than conveying exactly what was literally happening!)
_________________

[CubaLibre]

Incidentally, comic books fall prey to many of the same vices, for many of the same reasons (namely, their serialization). They retain a little more artistic merit, for me, because it's easier for an artist to get away with doing something creative because it doesn't necessary cost the producers any more money, except perhaps in lost sales because people don't like "experimental" stuff. But there's a bit more wiggle room.

In general, though, I find one-shot graphic novels or pre-planned miniseries to be far superior, just like movies and one-season animes.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[Ebrey]