I can understand your frustration, but I really don't think that Mulholland Dr. is meant to be so plot driven. You repeatedly complain that the ending didn't tie up all of the loose ends, and cite this as a failure of the film. I think that if the film does fail in this regard, it is failing only to satisfy viewers hoping for an M. Night Shamalyan ending. Many other people, myself included, find the ending emotionally satisfying. Granted, on first viewing it can be completely mystifying, and even frustrating. The more I watch, though, the more I'm drawn into the tragedy of Diane's fractured mind. This isn't a cheap resolution and those of us who respond to it aren't being "duped." I do understand your point of view, and I think it is not surprising that some would feel that way, especially given that Mulholland Dr. was intended to be a television series that had to morph into movie form to see the light of day. So, yes, of course, there are plot strands that can't be resolved, even by the catch-all "it was a dream" theory. However, to co-opt your travel analogy, sometimes getting there is more than half the fun. Lynch has more entertaining plot threads, interesting characters, and confounding mysteries than an entire summer's worth of Hollywood movies, and I think that that alone is worth celebrating. Lynch has never set out to make The Sixth Sense, and his movies aren't about tying everything up neatly at the end. He is far more expressionistic as a filmmaker. Thus, if his movie has no effect on you, that is a failing of sorts, as least as far as you're concerned. But you should at least critique the movie on its own terms. Slacker didn't tie everything up neatly at the end. Neither did Un Chien Andalou or Koyaanisqatsi. Different movies try for different things, and to criticize them for not being a different type of movie ultimately says nothing about the movie at all.
|