779 Mulholland Dr.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Apologies on the name. Either way though it seems clear that there is a perfectly good explanation out there and your puzzlement over the blurring seems to amount to wanting to see nudity.
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Only to someone unable or unwilling to actually consider the points and questions I was putting out there. Part of it was wondering about whether Harring had misgivings about the full nudity even in the theatrical version and questioning whether the explicit shot was needed in the scene in the first place for artistic reasons. Do those really seem to you like things some sweaty-palmed ogler would want to discuss?
I can take an insult to my intelligence from out of nowhere, but it's a shame to see a conversation derailed into something as dumb as whether I really just want to see Harring fully nude (I don't, particularly, and that wasn't the point, in case that wasn't already clear enough).
I can take an insult to my intelligence from out of nowhere, but it's a shame to see a conversation derailed into something as dumb as whether I really just want to see Harring fully nude (I don't, particularly, and that wasn't the point, in case that wasn't already clear enough).
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
I thought the point was supposed to be the difference between how the film would be presented in theaters (very dark and quick, and without the ability for the audience to pause or rewind) vs. on home video, where contrast can be adjusted and the scene can be paused, played in slow motion, or otherwise removed from whatever context it has when the film plays normally.
In any case, the gentlemanly thing to do when this scene arrives is to politely put down your head and think of long-gone weekends at grandma's until the panting stops, so how Criterion presents it on video is of no particular importance.
In any case, the gentlemanly thing to do when this scene arrives is to politely put down your head and think of long-gone weekends at grandma's until the panting stops, so how Criterion presents it on video is of no particular importance.
-
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Yes, the point I was trying to make. Lynch similarly censored Wild at Heart if it makes any difference, albeit for different reasons, but it's not without precedent.swo17 wrote:I thought the point was supposed to be the difference between how the film would be presented in theaters (very dark and quick, and without the ability for the audience to pause or rewind) vs. on home video, where contrast can be adjusted and the scene can be paused, played in slow motion, or otherwise removed from whatever context it has when the film plays normally.
- Gregory
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
For a completely different reason, as far as I understand it: that was the only way to keep the scene in question and not get an X rating. And in that case the U.S. theatrical version matched the home video releases, with all being censored due to the MPAA.
In the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems like the motivation for the blurring was due to Harring's wishes and Lynch wanting to honor their agreement about the home video release, and not a general unwillingness on Lynch's part to have a full-frontal scene be included on a home video release, which could be paused etc. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had the full frontal shots left uncensored for the releases of Blue Velvet, for example. And in that case, Rossellini's exposure was vital to the film, as she well understood. As shocking and even painful to watch as it was, that's part and parcel of the reason to keep it all intact, and it wouldn't have been the same film if it had been shot or edited differently or changed for the home video release.
The nude scene in question from Mulholland Dr. seems to function in a very different way than that, though, and again I don't take issue with Harring and Lynch's wishes about it. But it would perhaps be worth revisiting the appearance of the blurring for the Criterion release to see if it could better match Lynch's stated intention of having it be done so that it's virtually invisible rather than standing out.
In the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems like the motivation for the blurring was due to Harring's wishes and Lynch wanting to honor their agreement about the home video release, and not a general unwillingness on Lynch's part to have a full-frontal scene be included on a home video release, which could be paused etc. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have had the full frontal shots left uncensored for the releases of Blue Velvet, for example. And in that case, Rossellini's exposure was vital to the film, as she well understood. As shocking and even painful to watch as it was, that's part and parcel of the reason to keep it all intact, and it wouldn't have been the same film if it had been shot or edited differently or changed for the home video release.
The nude scene in question from Mulholland Dr. seems to function in a very different way than that, though, and again I don't take issue with Harring and Lynch's wishes about it. But it would perhaps be worth revisiting the appearance of the blurring for the Criterion release to see if it could better match Lynch's stated intention of having it be done so that it's virtually invisible rather than standing out.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Sorry to disrupt the current nudity conversation for a moment, but I've been reading through this thread slightly taken aback by the idea that this release is anything less than a major one (especially for a forum that's consistently voted it in second place as the top film of its decade in the last two cycles of our decade list project). I don't recall having seen any particular interviews at all about this film, although I admit that I've only ever had the UK DVD with just its sheet of clues to watch out for. Interviews with the actors and director and the inclusion of on set footage sounds as if it will provide me with more information on the making of the film than I have ever had even if it might involve more remisicences than interpretations! Specific insight on the film's themes will likely be difficult to come by, but then did anyone really, seriously expect that there would be a scholarly commentary track and Lynch explaining the intent behind every image scene by scene on here? I'm not even expecting chapter breaks on the disc, so even that would be welcome if it happened!
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
The *more!* has been added and unfortunately no shorts.
This looks like the final list...
DIRECTOR-APPROVED EDITION:
>New, restored 4K digital transfer, supervised by director David Lynch and director of photography Peter Deming, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray
>New interviews with Lynch; Deming; actors Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux, and Laura Harring; composer Angelo Badalamenti; production designer Jack Fisk; and casting director Johanna Ray
>On-set footage
>Deleted scene
>Trailer
>PLUS: A booklet featuring an interview with Lynch from the 2005 edition of filmmaker and writer Chris Rodley’s book Lynch on Lynch
This looks like the final list...
DIRECTOR-APPROVED EDITION:
>New, restored 4K digital transfer, supervised by director David Lynch and director of photography Peter Deming, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack on the Blu-ray
>New interviews with Lynch; Deming; actors Naomi Watts, Justin Theroux, and Laura Harring; composer Angelo Badalamenti; production designer Jack Fisk; and casting director Johanna Ray
>On-set footage
>Deleted scene
>Trailer
>PLUS: A booklet featuring an interview with Lynch from the 2005 edition of filmmaker and writer Chris Rodley’s book Lynch on Lynch
- eerik
- Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:53 pm
- Location: Estonia
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
So "more" was just a deleted scene?!?! Disappointing.
- Roger Ryan
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
I imagine the "deleted scene" will be the hospital scene with Robert Forster and Brent Briscoe... As I recall, this was the only extended unique sequence shot for the TV pilot that did not end up in the theatrical film in some fashion.
SpoilerShow
...in which they discuss the doctor who won't stop laughing at the critical condition the limo driver is in.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
The discouraging thing is that the pilot that has been floating around now is the one the Lynch cut down under pressure from the network, which they ended up rejecting anyway. I've read about a scene involving a small boy with unnaturally bright blue eyes (like Dune??) with metal crutches that was supposed to be a powerful image. Too bad that's never turned up.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
I'm disappointed that there isn't more for the extras (more deleted scenes from the pilot would have been great), but then again, with Lynch's involvement, this is probably the best it could ever be. Like with their release of Eraserhead, it seems like Criterion has made the most by including new interviews with basically everyone crucial to the film's existence, although I do wish Mulholland Dr. had more archival features similar to the ones Criterion included for Eraserhead (is this the case for the "On-set Footage"?).
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
And this was supposed to be a "big" release. I kind of wish Arrow were putting this out instead.
- FrauBlucher
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
- Location: Greenwich Village
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
I'm sure Lynch would tie Arrow's hands as well.swo17 wrote:And this was supposed to be a "big" release. I kind of wish Arrow were putting this out instead.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
StudioCanal has the UK rights, so an Arrow release isn't happening with or without Lynch's involvement.
- Minkin
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:13 pm
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
It also adds an interview with production designer Jack Fisk
As usual, it seems like we get better mores when there's no "more"s listed. That said, I wonder where the other Lynch shorts are going to end up? They must have some other Lynch film(s) planned at this point to forgo putting Dumbland, etc here (Elephant Man? Inland Empire? Blue Velvet re-release?). I won't complain until I see the final product - as things still change - and like Eraserhead, major supplements were given less than exciting titles in the specs (the "on set footage" had a much larger description in the previous iteration of the supplements list).
As usual, it seems like we get better mores when there's no "more"s listed. That said, I wonder where the other Lynch shorts are going to end up? They must have some other Lynch film(s) planned at this point to forgo putting Dumbland, etc here (Elephant Man? Inland Empire? Blue Velvet re-release?). I won't complain until I see the final product - as things still change - and like Eraserhead, major supplements were given less than exciting titles in the specs (the "on set footage" had a much larger description in the previous iteration of the supplements list).
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Given that Fisk is one of Lynch's oldest friends and longest-term collaborators, I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at an interview with him.
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
The Elephant Man is with Warner via Paramount, so forget about that one. I can see Criterion releasing both Lost Highway and Inland Empire (the former, like Mulholland Dr., is with Universal, and Lynch's Absurda should still have the rights to the latter).Minkin wrote:That said, I wonder where the other Lynch shorts are going to end up? They must have some other Lynch film(s) planned at this point to forgo putting Dumbland, etc here (Elephant Man? Inland Empire? Blue Velvet re-release?).
If this pans out, I'd expect the shorts to end up with Inland Empire.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
And a worthwhile contributor to the Malick discs.MichaelB wrote:Given that Fisk is one of Lynch's oldest friends and longest-term collaborators, I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at an interview with him.
- jedgeco
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:28 am
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
False advertising -- doesn't resolve the nudity question at all.Self wrote:Beaver
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
I can't believe Lynch is still insisting on the no chapter stops thing. I presume bookmarking still works on the Blu-ray?
- cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
Eraserhead had book marking disabled if I remember correctly, so I wouldn't count on it here as well.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
If you shut off your Blu-ray player, would it ask you to resume where you left off?
- pzadvance
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- mizo
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
- Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?
Re: 779 Mulholland Dr.
What's with the reframing on the eighth cap in the review (of Camilla Rhodes and back-up singers)? Gary doesn't really mention it beyond a vague reference to "framing differences," unless I'm missing something. Is there any official word on Lynch making changes? Could this have to do with the fact that the film was reframed after being reworked from a TV pilot to a theatrical film (although I don't see how that would have impacted this difference)?
I have NO intention of starting a debate about Lynch being a revisionist or anything like that (not a fan of those arguments). Just curious if anybody has any info about this.
I have NO intention of starting a debate about Lynch being a revisionist or anything like that (not a fan of those arguments). Just curious if anybody has any info about this.