frustrating vagueness

Rating: 4/10 (7 January 2002)

I like David Lynch's work a lot: I've been fascinated by Eraserhead, shocked by Blue Velvet, and deeply impressed by Wild at Heart. And I enjoyed Twin Peaks years ago. However, I don't know what to do with Mulholland Drive: To me, the structure of the story remains unclear, and there's no solution to the questions it poses. And, for my taste, it takes a minimum of structure to make a film worth seeing it. This kind of vagueness is well known from Twin Peaks. However, being vague was one of the substantial characteristics of the sequel - it was even necessary to keep the story open, thus creating a never ending desire to see more and more of it. But that's not the way movies work... I don't have a problem with open-endedness. But I do have problems with a film which seems to end without any motivation, just as if the director would say something like "OK folks, this should be enough for this time. Thanks and goodbye." Besides that, I don't like those comic elements in a film announced as a thriller, such as when director Adam Kesher demolishes the car of the studio bosses just like an angry schoolboy, or the killer who eventually shoots 3 persons dead just because he's too foolish to get his job done properly, or the bodyguard who smashes Kesher's wife's friend first, then the wife. You may find some deconstructing irony in these scenes if you can. I can't. And I don't like trivial imitations like Kesher being designed as a parody of German director Wim Wenders, or the pseudo-diabolic old couple resembling the frightening neighbours from Polanski's Rosemary's Baby. No friends, I'll sit back in my seat and wait for the next Lynch to come. This one was a waste of time for me.