Random thoughts on David Lynch's Lost Highway

Disclaimer:  I had read some light analysis (not just at that link, but many others) on this which influenced my thoughts on the film, but I'm too lazy to go back and find the same articles.  I've heard Rob Ager is a great film analyst and will be reviewing Lost Highway in the near future; look for that here.I'm no film buff, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have enough patience or analytical skill to dig into abstract film and come away with anything meaningful.  But for those who care to be mystified rather than simply entertained, David Lynch's Lost Highway is a fantastic film with great acting performances.

**spoiler alert - do not continue if you'd rather see the film before having some plot points spoiled for you**

The first thing I'll say about this film is that Robert Blake probably has the best acting performance out of anyone, even Bill Pullman & Patricia Arquette, who are easily tied for second here.  His Mystery Man is one of Blake's - and Lynch's - finest creations, and given the interviews I've read from Blake himself, he was given a little bit of leeway (rare for a Lynch film), and decided that an understated approach to this character worked best.  And worked, it did...very, very well.

Lost Highway doesn't follow a linear narrative or story, so it's a difficult view.  But once viewed, most can't help but be curious about the film.  What does it mean?  Did Fred actually kill his wife?  What is happening when Fred transforms into Pete and then back into Fred again? And for Christ's sake, why is Robert Blake dolled up like a vampire?

These are fair questions, but when looking at the film from another angle, it starts to make a bit of sense.  There's a scene in which Fred is shown as impotent.  His wife, Renee, speaks in an innocent-sounding tone but is very vague with him about certain things, and she seems disconnected and almost bored in their marriage, while having the time of her life at a party with another man.  When Fred's jealousy appears to boil over, the next thing you know he's in prison for murdering his wife.  Hmmm...so did he do it, or did he fantasize about doing it?

Just when you think these questions might be answered, out of nowhere Fred turns into a younger person.  Yes, TURNS INTO - in Fred's place, in the prison cell, is a young man by the name of Pete.  It becomes clear that this can't really be a younger version of Fred; my thinking is that it's Fred idealizing about how he would like to be and how he'd like his consciousness to be able to view himself - innocent, manipulated into doing things, talented (he's a very talented mechanic for very rich & powerful people, it would appear - and this is how he meets Alice (more on her momentarily) - but Fred's own wife Renee did not go to the only show that he plays in the movie - Fred is a talented Jazz saxophonist).

Then there's Patricia Arquette's wonderful portrayal of Alice (and Renee).  It's the same actress for both parts, so Lynch's message is clear:  this is another representation of Renee.  When we see Pete, he's confused; he gets out of prison as no one can figure out what the hell happened to Fred, and he meets the gangster-pimped & quite striking Alice.  Alice quickly gets her claws into Pete, manipulating him to do things - "let's run away by killing my pimp and stealing his money.  I'll f**k you, really well, for this privilege", is the implication in this part of the story.  Pete seems a bit suspicious but agrees.

Let's stop here for a moment:  Let's say Fred did kill his wife, or even wanted to. I feel the "Pete" part of the story is his mind's way of trying to rationalize his jealousy, whether it was ultimately murderous or not.  Pete's an innocent guy getting laid and hanging out with his buddies, who suddenly encounters a beautiful, mysterious woman who jumps his bones and seduces him into murder and robbery.  This is Fred's mind's way of telling him that what he did was justified - just look at what a whore Alice (oops, Renee?) is!

Later, toward the end of the film, we see a couple of key encounters.  Alice says they have to meet a "friend" of hers in the desert before they can escape, and Pete questions her on this friend in much the same way Fred questions Renee about her male friend, Andy.  We're now getting to the point where Pete has also been corrupted by Fred's jealousy, but again, Fred's mind is assigning the blame for this on Alice.

Back to one of the key encounters: Pete is making love to Alice in the desert and keeps telling her he wants her.  She whispers to him:  "You'll never have me" and gets up, nude, and walks toward a cabin.  This is the culmination of the jealousy in Fred's mind:  in his mind, he's done nothing wrong, and only wants to be loved & wanted as his creation Pete is.  But Alice is corrupted, a whore, and as much as he allowed himself to be seduced by her, he'll never be able to have her in the way two innocent lovers would.  Pete's more appropriately aged girlfriend Sheila would have been the better bet for Pete, but if we run with the idea that we're really seeing Fred tell himself a story, that relationship was never going to happen.

When Pete gets up, he's back to being Fred again.  The story has come full circle now:  as much as Pete wanted this woman, she was damaged goods from the beginning, and he can't really ever "have" her.  This, I believe, is Fred's mind finally telling him that Renee - his actual wife - was damaged goods all along, even though he never really knew that to be the case.  Pete does, but Fred never did:  Fred is filling in the blanks himself and making excuses.

When Fred gets up and approaches the cabin, he encounters Robert Blake's Mystery Man character for the second time - Alice has disappeared.  Mystery Man is what I've read & believe to be a manifestation of Fred's jealous rage, so it makes sense that he would be awaiting Fred inside the cabin rather than Alice.  Mystery Man tells him that Alice doesn't exist; that if Renee told him her name was Alice, she was lying (more Renee-bashing here!).

I can't really get too detailed into the ending without watching it again, but the twists & turns this story offers while also giving us an abstract yet rewatchable film makes it an amazing flick.  I don't know why, but the mystery in this film is enticing, and while it leaves you wanting more, it would be a disservice to the piece if it gave you any more hard evidence of what's going on to work with. 


Last note: Despite the layers upon layers of analysis we can attribute to this film, there are others who feel there's even more to the story than the character of Fred/Pete.  That this is a more high level narrative, a critique by Lynch of American society.  I certainly have no basis for denying this, and haven't read in full the detailed analyses offered online, but here's one piece that explores this view:

Huffington Post article by Gary Hart

In a recent Huffington Post article by Gary Hart, a few odd sentences stick out.  Of course, the article was closed for comments - gotta love that.

Here are a few tidbits I found...just wrong:

If we are all "in this together," then we share more than just an interest in collective security. And if we have collective interests, the instrument by which we pursue and promote those interests is the national government, not Wall Street or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

As we learned in 1929 and 2008, markets can fail, usually through greed and lack of regulation.

The Goldwater-Reagan-Gingrich-Tea Party revolutions all called into question whether we are a society and therefore whether we act through our national government to pursue our common interests. ... Many Americans continue to believe we can have the public services a very large majority wants without paying very much for them. .

It would be an interesting, though destructive, experiment to see how many Americans would like the nation the Tea Party seeks to construct.

 *sigh*....

Let's take these few points one by one...

• collective interests should be pursued via the national gov't:  I think our forefathers would be horrified at the degree to which "we" pursue "our interests" via the gov't.  Check out lobbying, Hart, and figure out how it really works.  The interests of the hard working, taxpaying American are rarely intertwined with those of high powered lobbyists.
• 1929 and 2008 = greed and lack of regulation:  not true at all. The regulations have been there all along...it's the regulations that continue to fail us.  We have a weak national culture *and so* arbitrage occurs in the form of people finding schemes - either with the regulators or behind their backs - to make money however they can and no matter who it affects.  Not the other way around. 
• Many Americans apparently believe we can continue with huge budget with no one to pay for it.  Really?  Who are these Americans?  Most hard working people I know figure that the best way to fix the budget shortfall is to simply take the additional responsibilities that the government has bestowed upon itself away from the federal government.  And into the hands of, say, the free market (uh-oh, bad words!), or at least state governments so we can have 50 mini-cultures figuring out what's best and emulating each other based on what works for them.  How Hart jumps to this conclusion of what many Americans believe is baffling.  Most people who are in the 48% who actually pay for 100% of these services would disagree with this statement.
• The Tea Party world is apparently a fantasy land we've never encountered in America.  Wrong again, Hart.  Just go back a couple hundred years and you'll get the idea.  Oh, but those were Neanderthal times...people didn't even have indoor plumbing, so they couldn't have been very bright, or they would have paid out of pocket to the government to....do what, exactly?  Spend most of its revenue on programs that are a dead end and/or will bankrupt our country?  The initial Tea Party movement was about those same hard working, taxpaying folks who want to stop the bleeding of their paycheck into a government that has decided to govern itself instead of the people.

Also loved this bit:

Thomas Jefferson wanted our government to do only those necessary things that individuals could not do for themselves. That is quite a large territory. It includes transportation systems, public safety and judicial systems, public education, and national security, among many other undertakings.

 
Hart takes Jefferson's philosophy and then assumes it's a "large territory, [such as] transportation systems, public safety, and judicial, education, national security".  Only two of those can be found in our Constitution.  The others?

• Transportation systems: Certainly not a federal government role.  Maybe a city role, in larger cities, but public transit is not something our federal government should be involved in. And by the way, couldn't a for-profit business outperform most major city public transit systems?
• Public safety:  Again, this is a local government role, not a federal one.  And even then, we see what goons we have as police officers now.  No thanks - I'd rather hire a private force that answers to the government on a regular basis; they'd be far more efficient.
• Education: The Department of Education is a black hole of spending, and has it improved the quality of education in this country?  No, it keeps getting worse - get the government out of that game, let the State governments sort out what's best for them, and education becomes more competitive nationally.  That can only boost the scores of all those "standardized" tests that probably wouldn't exist in such a world.

In summary - Hart is a goon, and loves making grand, sweeping statements that people are meant to take at face value with no analysis or thought.  Sounds like how our mass media and government would love for everyone to behave.

Manic Street Preachers

Take it from a fanboy:  After Lifeblood came out in 2004, being a huge fan of Know Your Enemy, I was a bit confused.  "Are we going back to the 'This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours' days?
Not that I was complaining.  I loved both of those albums, but they were a bit streamlined compared to an effort like Know Your Enemy, where some real experimentation was going on.  Some bands experiment and it doesn't pan out so well (see Oasis).  Some bands experiment and strike gold, as with Know Your Enemy.

But after Lifeblood, the band surprised by doing a 180 and releasing Send Away The Tigers.  Definitely a "transition" album for them.  It had some strong tunes on it, but overall it felt just the tiniest bit forced.  Still, it was an enjoyable listen and definitely a comeback after Lifeblood - again, big fan here, but it disappointed in the mainstream.

But now, Manics are going through a particularly fertile songwriting period. They've released three albums since 2007 - Send Away The Tigers, Journal for Plague Lovers (yeah yeah, lyrics by Richey, I know), and only a year and a half later, Postcards From A Young Man.  All of the albums are high quality, and they are really the only remaining Britpop-type band I can think of which releases strong efforts year in and year out. 

This particular video I'm linking to above, is for a song to which I'm currently addicted.  I can't get enough of this song - at first I hated it due to the mandola intro, but now, I love it. 

This article at a song-by-song Manics blog says it all:

I Think I Found It is one of the most memorable and remarkable on Postcards From a Young Man. It’s a breezy, light tune with an irresistable energy, and the joy is there from the very basics of the song’s core and writing. I particularly love the punctuation DUN-DUNNNs on the second verse that somehow hammer down the core positivity of “I think I found it” and “I think I love it”. To support the song’s feel even further, I Think I Found It marks the Manics debut of the mandola (played by Bradders himself) whose light, glimmering sparkle sounds better than any guitar could.

I hope the Manics continue to release music every couple of years, because quality is never affected by a short absence from the Welsh trio.

Not so much on the Wordpress thing...

Below, you used to find a link to this same blog, only at Wordpress.  Well...I'm gonna backtrack on that for now.  This is the new-old home of the Modern Soul blog.

It's not that this blog gets so much traffic, it's that the few people who do trickle in come in via Google searches.  If I'm to share my insanity with the world around me, I might as well keep it right here, in the same rubber room it's been for the past 3-4 years.  Three hundred-plus posts, and I thought it was going to be as easy as switching to a new platform.  No one goes to the new site at all, and only a few people a day come here.  Turns out moving a blog is about as difficult as moving from one's home into a new one...