A beautiful work of art that fails to be a movie

Rating: 6/10 (28 August 2015)

The problem with Mulholland Drive is that if you try to say it's a bad movie, anyone can simply fall back on the classic "You just didn't understand it". I finally brought myself to watch it for a second time, and I still don't see the merit. And let me make it clear, to the extent that anyone CAN understand this movie, I do. But for one thing, David Lynch's make-it-up-as-you-go style always leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Don't get me wrong, I like a movie that leaves some things up to the imagination or open to interpretation. But there has to be something concrete underneath it all. For instance, as difficult as it may be to grasp, there is a distinct sequence of events that Luis Bunuel wants to depict in L'Age d'Or; and distinct ideas he wants to invoke. This is why his work is satisfying even to those who don't fully understand it, whereas with Lynch's films, even if you do understand it you're left feeling unsatisfied, as if something was left unfinished. And more than anything, this is an unfinished work: a television show that was dismissed and forced into the constraints of the feature film. Characters left undeveloped. Plot lines left unresolved. Ends left loose. It is an entrancing movie, credit where credit is due. There's nothing stale about it. There's purpose behind each shot (however undefined), and the shots themselves are beautiful. I've given it a six, and for artistic reasons I'd like to give it more. But a movie can't just be art, it still has to be a movie. And in that regard, this one just barely fails.