Since my last project was inspired by Mulholland Drive I felt it was only right I go and see it again; in theaters for the first time. I’m pretty skeptical on whether or not it can qualify as an experimental film but it is labeled in such a way online and the screening which I found was listed on the Screen Slate website which you suggested we use. Because of that ambiguity as to whether or not I should have selected this film over more clearly experimental ones I will center my critique around why Mulholland Drive is indeed an experimental film that managed to finesse its way to the box office.

If we were to watch the first couple of minutes of the film, stop there and determine its genre we would probably be right to assume that, because of its rather linear and fairly sensical start, this will be no more than an odd yet traditional narrative. However, just like as is often the case with experimental film I would argue that what this storyline set up points to, as do many seemingly traditional elements of the film, is the artist acknowledging the medium that he is working with and letting its clichés and glitches show. But David Lynch’s medium which he is making transparent is not film. It’s not the camera he uses (otherwise we would see static or skips). No, his medium is Hollywood itself. It’s the industry and culture which is both the topic of the film through the main female protagonist(s) and most importantly which is where Lynch will succesfully sneak in this film. Almost like a joke with its set-up and punch line then, he gives the viewer a slightly traditional entry point and then catches them off guard with every scene going forward.

Another element which has often, in my experience, not been the main focus of experimental films but which is very present in the film, and which could make someone argue the idea of it as an experimental film, is dialogue. However the dialogue is an even better example of Lynch acknowledging his own medium as experimental film-makers tend to do. Although quite often logical and understandable the dialogue always seems overacted as if to point towards a movie within a movie. Something which is reinforced by the fact that the protagonist is an actress herself and at some point even reads lines at an audition.

Lynch shows no desire to answer the audience’s question or give them a comforting ending as traditional filmmakers tend to do. In fact it’s the opposite. The deeper we get into the film the less sense things make.

Lastly, if we are to judge a movie by the sum of its parts rather than by how it was packaged as a whole than how we could not recognize that in nearly every shot Lynch is trying something, experimenting if you will, whether it be with light in the saturated shots of Laura or with sound in the gorgeous scene at the opera house where the performer drops dead yet she can be heard finishing the song. A moment which I think is the key towards understanding that this is a movie about movies in that this opera scene points towards the illusion of cinema, the lack of “live-ness” in contrast with theater which results in the character which you love on the screen being already dead and gone (the actor’s job being already finished) by the time you see it on film and the suspension of disbelief which both performers and the audience members engage in to go along for the ride despite the flaws and distractions of the medium.