MYST Post #6: Mulholland Drive (and perhaps a tad of Blue Velvet)

I'm not usually one for "it was all a dream" plot line, and I'm not even sure if this film was utilizing this frustrating sequence. No... Mulholland Drive wasn't a movie that had a coherent, orderly plot. It truly emulated the surreal quality of a dream, and for this reason I liked the movie. There is no explanation for the several plot lines developed. Some stick, and some disappear completely after the first twenty minutes. There is no rhyme or reason as to what happens. Betty/Diane, played by Naomi Watts, is this doe-eyed, smiley blonde girl hoping to make it big in L.A. She is staying at her aunt's apartment, but what she is not ready for is the woman hiding out in her apartment. "Rita" stumbled into the apartment after having survived a car accident that took place on Mulholland Drive. This opening scene takes on a film noir quality. The limo stops, and Rita is held at gunpoint, until two cars--drag racing--crash into the limo. Rita survives, but is suffering from retrograde amnesia. She can't even remember her own name. She calls herself Rita because she saw a Rita Hayworth poster in the apartment. From this point on, the story shifts in and out of Betty/Diane and Rita's attempts at uncovering this mystery surrounding the car accident, mixing this plot with random other scenes that make no sense. About two thirds of the way through, Betty wakes up, and Diane resumes her normal life. I'd usually be annoyed with this plot "twist" but the final half hour or so makes it worthwhile. Nothing resolves; nothing makes sense at the end. Everything is still dreamlike. That is why this movie works.

I watched Blue Velvet a few weeks before I watched this movie and I think David Lynch is emerging as writer/director I really like. Both films make fun of the "everything is peachy keen, squeaky clean" lifestyles some people seem to have. The quaint, perfect suburbia is a very, very thin sheet covering a completely and utterly insane guy, Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet. Frank Booth is so twisted, he would make Freud feel uncomfortable. Out of all the movies I've seen he ranks in the top five most twisted characters. In Mulholland Drive, there is a part where Betty is coming down the escalator at LAX, accompanied by an elderly lady who is assumed to be related in some way. This preconceived notion is completely shattered when they step outside to get a cab, and Betty says something like, "Well, I guess this is where we head our separate ways". I mean, seriously? It is absurd to become BFFs with an elderly couple on an airplane. It is just so over-the-top cheesy I want to puke. It was so sweet my teeth started aching. But this is why I get a kick out of David Lynch's work! It pokes holes in conventional things, and I'm all for that kind of thinking. 

One scene I thought was interesting was the part when Adam, played by Justin Theroux, discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Adam, a successf
ul director, doesn't go to work like usual but comes back to his lavish Hollywood home instead. He walks in the house, and discovers his wife laying in bed with a guy (he is played by Billy Ray Cyrus...I had to pause really quickly to look up the cast list on IMDb just to make sure I wasn't mistaken). Instead of the philanderer scrambling to hide her lover before her husband walks in, she stays passively in bed. The entire scene is very dreamlike. The first bits of dialogue are not what you would expect to hear: "Now you've done it" and "Just forget you ever saw it. It's better that way" is something completely weird to be saying upon being caught. There are no frantic hysterics from the cheating wife, or raging shouts from the husband who's been wronged. No; everything is calm. The dreamlike quality continues on with the choice of neon pink paint being dumped into Lorraine's jewelry box. Now we have the hysterics. The act of ruining jewelry has caused a bigger emotional reaction than the cheating. I know it should be an intense scene, but to me, it's not. The music, the bluesy organs and tinkling piano just doesn't let the scene become intense. With the pink paint everywhere, Lorraine frantically trying to save her jewelry, and big, hulking Billy Ray to the rescue is actually very comical. That is why this film was so interesting to me...It is able to be mysterious, intense, and horrifying, while still being light, airy, and comedic.

This film had a sort of horror quality to it. The camera was directed in a way that created suspense. For instance, during one of the random scenes, a man recounts his nightmare. When he walks outside behind the diner, the weird Big Foot thing was standing there. It startles the viewer, just as if it was a horror movie. This same technique is used with Betty and Rita when they try to solve the mystery surrounding Rita's accident. One thing I noticed that was consistent in Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive was the music. In one of the stranger scenes in Blue Velvet (they're all pretty strange, but this one is just a little bit stranger), a bluesy song is on in the background. The get-up-and-dance rhythm would normally be perceived as a weird choice to be a backdrop for darker, more sinister scenes, but it just works. In Mulholland drive, the same scene I hyperlinked above shares similar musical qualities. This weird swanky blues music seems an odd choice to be utilized during a scene when a husband discovers his wife has been cheating on him, but, like in Blue Velvet, it just works.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this movie. I think this is one of the weirder movies I've watched this semester, and some parts of the film I was completely annoyed with. Only when the movie ended did I get the chance to finally ask myself if I enjoyed it. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it, but I liked it in the sense of its utter weirdness. It was seriously like someone's crazy dream, and I think that is what is so alluring to a lot of people who've written reviews on it; many liked it, and because of the film's ability to relate to anyone because its dreamlike nature, I give it 4/4 stars.

MYST Post #5: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I don't usually enjoy a film that is based off a stage-play, but this one I really liked. A married couple, George and Martha, played by Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, invite a younger couple over to their house one night for drinks. George is upset with Martha because she didn't tell him she had invited this couple. The guy, Nick, is new in the biology department of the university, and his wife, Honey, is very annoying and can't hold her liquor. Martha is already a bit drunk from earlier in the night, but the two couples immediately start drinking and they do not stop. This film won two Academy Awards.

So, the night continues on, filled with heated arguments and mind games. Many of the arguments are based off of Martha and George's "child". By the end of the movie, it is clear that the two couldn't have kids, and they were just making their son up. George 'gets back' at Martha by telling her their child has died in a car accident and won't be coming home for his 16th birthday. 

The reason why this film seems like an actual movie and not a play is because of the cinematography. I remember watching Death of a Salesman, based off of a stage-play, and being utterly bored. It was slow and just boring, despite the good acting. It is one thing when it is set on a stage for an audience that goes to see it, but when it is almost the same version on screen, it loses the spark a play naturally has. In Who's Afraid of virginia Woolf, there are weird angles, and in the really intense scenes, close-up shots are utilized. Here, in this film, the camera is like another character. It connects all four characters despite their contempt for each other, and it is key in conveying all of the emotion each character

evokes. 

This scene shows the camera work and awesome acting at the same time. Well, one can watch any part of this movie and understand that the acting is phenomenal. I love when Martha refers to George as "Him, it, that, there", and the camera aids in building the tension. There is some good deep space composition going on in the beginning of it with Martha and Nick sitting on the sofa and George fumbling around in the background for more alcohol. As Martha's monologue continues, the camera follows her face closely, keeping it in the frame as she paces. The camera cuts to Nick's tired face, and then Honey's confused face, back and forth between the four characters, until finally all the momentum built by the movement of the camera is resolved in the climax of George breaking a bottle of liquor in pure rage, directed towards Martha and what she was saying. 

It seemed like there was a lot of tension between the older generation and the younger generation. When Nick and Honey first arrive George talks down to Nick and calls him "kid". Honey is very juvenile in the way she says "Never mix never worry!", referring to the straight brandy she asks for (she ends up very ill later on). Martha obviously wears the pants in the relationship, and she is very unladylike when she constantly swears and argues with George while simultaneously flirting with Nick. 

Overall this movie was really interesting and very contemporary in the way it was made and the acting styles utilized. I give it 3.5/4 stars. 

1975 Film Project: Black Gold

The documentary, A Decade Under the Influence, inspired my group's 1975 film project. After watching bits of the documentary, I knew I wanted to do something with the oil crises. When I think of the 70's, the awesome music comes to mind, then all the turmoil and change. I was aware that oil was scarce in the U.S., and I also know that Russia had (and still has) a ton of it. So, I needed to come up with a story line surrounding this issue. I came up with a loose story line: Our main character, De Niro, gets involved with the oil business in the states, becomes rich, thus showing the corruption of the U.S. Government. What I needed help with was sort of an important part: How does De Niro do this? I actually asked my dad, because he is really knowledgable about all this political/social stuff of the 70's and 80's. He told me that Russia was making a whole lot of money by selling their abundant supply of oil to Europe on the black market. So, from there, David helped fill in the blanks. Here is the final story line:

OAPEC Oil crisis: Our lead man, De Niro, leaves his home country of Russia for America.  Upon arriving, De Niro is jobless, until his personal ties with Breshnev bring the opportunity to get into the oil business. They construct a plan to become rich off of the oil embargo occurring at the time.

At this time, 1973-4, Russia is selling oil--and they have a ton of it--on the black market to Europe and making tons of money. De Niro’s character sees this and he sees a lucrative business back in the states where fuel is very scarce. He sees an opportunity to make himself and his little brother/good friends incredibly rich.  But what starts out as earning money for his friends and family becomes a full-on fixation on climbing to the top of the oil business.  De Niro delves deeper and deeper into the oil business, looking for more power and more money, connecting himself with shady characters and his younger brother (Jack Nicholson) warns him of his obsession, but De Niro, now entranced by thoughts of being incredibly wealthy and powerful, ignores the warning.  Once he has almost complete control of the oil industry in America, De Niro looks for even more in Kenny (Ray Liotta) who approaches De Niro, asking for money as an investment in a drug ring.  Nicholson, upon discovering this, becomes very angry and concerned for his brother’s safety and sanity, and he attempts to dissuade De Niro from getting involved in the drug business.  Nicholson and De Niro argue until De Niro swears off his brother completely.  The U.S. gov’t finds out about the whole business, both the oil and the drugs, and De Niro is taken in. What the audience doesn’t expect is the U.S. gov’t to want to make a deal with him. So, De Niro’s character is allowed to continue his mini black market trade as long as he gives a certain cut to the U.S. government each month.  They justify the protection by saying that they are “protecting their business investments,” and they turn a blind eye to De Niro’s part in the drug business.

The end highlight’s De Niro’s assassination by the Russians because they want the U.S. money for themselves, highlighting both America and Russia’s greed.

Director: Sidney Lumet: known for Dog Day Afternoon which Pacino starred in, also won an academy award for 12 Angry Men

Cinematographer: Victor J. Kemper: worked on The Candidate in 1972 with Robert Redford, and Dog Day Afternoon with Sidney Lumet.

Actors:

Lead: Robert De Niro (we chose him because of his acting in Mean Streets)

Supporting: Jack Nicholson, Robert Duvall (both of these men are up and coming young actors who have already played some impressive roles in movies like The Godfather and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).

The style we are going for is gritty. Oil is dirty, and the oil business back then was dirty, so we want the film to reflect this. In order to achieve this, we wanted Sidney Lumet to direct. He directed Dog Day Afternoon with Al Pacino, and that movie has a gritty, hardcore feel to it. The cinematographer will be Victor J. Kemper, who worked with Lumet on Dog Day Afternoon, so the two know each other and they work well together. Production will be done by Artists Entertainment Complex, and the distribution will be done by Warner Brothers. Warner Brothers is the ideal choice because they distributed films such as Mean Streets and Deliverance, both of which are riveting films. This will be a medium to larger scale production due to the main actors we have in it.

The genre will be a combination of crime and drama. The underground trading/selling of oil fits into the crime aspect, but the family relationships and conflicts that arise will add to the drama aspect of it.

Our film will be R rated. We don't want to sensor some of the violence/drug culture just to get access to the younger audience.

The aspects of 70's film we are covering will include the 70's drug culture, the anti-hero (De Niro is doing bad things to get money and doing drugs, but we are still rooting for him), and that the government is seen as corrupt/evil (this is evident with the U.S. Government turning a blind eye to De Niro's black market activity as long as they get a cut of the money). This last aspect is part of the message we wish to convey. It shows that greed is not good, and this is further emphasized with De Niro's demise and eventual assassination by same hand that lifted him up to "greatness". We also want to make some sort of commentary on the drug culture. We put drugs in a bad light because they influence the falling out between De Niro and Nicholson.

I worked with the same group, Mark and David, for the 1935 film project, and both are very easygoing and open to discuss any aspect of the film we are working on. I knew I wanted to win the best movie award with the 1975 project as well, and I knew this was the group to do it with. We came up with an interesting plot historically, and the poster was fun to make. Overall, I wouldn't change anything or do anything differently within this group for this movie project.