Mulholland Drive: The Musical | Little White Lies

In Praise Of

Mul­hol­land Dri­ve: The Musical

26 Mar 2017

Words by Adam Nayman

Vintage-style illustration depicting a group of people, including men and women, in front of a restaurant sign against a sunset backdrop with a palm tree.
Vintage-style illustration depicting a group of people, including men and women, in front of a restaurant sign against a sunset backdrop with a palm tree.
Is David Lynch’s warped Tin­sel­town satire from 2001 a con­tem­po­rary riff on one of Hollywood’s clas­sic-era staples?

Is David Lynch the great­est con­tem­po­rary direc­tor of musi­cal sequences? For all the hon­ou­rifics hurled at the favourite son of Mis­soula, Mon­tana over the years, this des­ig­na­tion has nev­er stuck despite plen­ty of evi­dence. The case dates all the way back to the Lady in the Radiator’s chip­munk-voiced ren­di­tion of Peter Ivers’ In Heav­en’ in Eraser­head, a scene that served as a tem­plate for many moody inter­ludes to come.

Think of Isabel­la Rosselli­ni croon­ing the title song from Blue Vel­vet on a dark­ened stage. Or, in the same film, Dean Stock­well lip-synch­ing to Roy Orbison’s In Dreams’ while clutch­ing a Klieg light like a rosary. Throw in Nico­las Cage’s flam­boy­ant Elvis Pres­ley vamps in Wild at Heart and the Road­house house band in Twin Peaks and a pat­tern emerges: more often than not, Lynch’s films piv­ot on pop stan­dards per­formed either in iso­la­tion from – or coun­ter­point to – the nar­ra­tive action.

Mul­hol­land Dri­ve is not only adorned by a series of indeli­ble musi­cal num­bers but also built solid­ly around them, to what­ev­er extent a movie famous­ly sal­vaged from the wreck­age of a crashed-and-burned tele­vi­sion pilot can be said to have a struc­ture in the first place. It opens with a hal­lu­ci­na­to­ry, high-con­trast, quick-cut pro­logue describ­ing a small-town jit­ter­bug con­test (a bla­tant anachro­nism giv­en the mil­len­ni­al set­ting) and then pro­ceeds in plot terms like a show­biz melo­dra­ma about a bright-eyed ingénue (Nao­mi Watts) decamp­ing to Los Ange­les to hit it big in the pic­tures (she’s from Deep Riv­er, Ontario,” which has to be the most Freudi­an small-town moniker since Twin Peaks).

That Betty’s sto­ry inter­sects with a thriller-like sce­nario about a beau­ti­ful, amne­si­ac woman, Rita (Lau­ra Ele­na Har­ring), is par for the course for Lynch, whose films are often schiz­o­phreni­cal­ly split between gen­res: the con­trast between a naïve blonde and a dark-haired woman with a secret is ful­ly car­ried over from Blue Vel­vet (and also Lost High­way, where Patri­cia Arquette com­bines both arche­types in a phe­nom­e­nal dual per­for­mance). And a fleet­ing glimpse of the poster for Gil­da – a long-ago star vehi­cle for anoth­er love­ly Rita – reminds us that even the dark­est noir can bright­en for the dura­tion of a white-hot torch song.

The first show­stop­per in Mul­hol­land Dri­ve comes on the set of the film that Watts’ Bet­ty is audi­tion­ing for, the pro­saical­ly titled (and again, judg­ing from its can­dy-coloured sound­stage back­drops, wild­ly anachro­nis­tic) The Sylvia North Sto­ry, which appears to be a musi­cal. As Bet­ty arrives for a meet­ing with the direc­tor, Adam Kesh­er (Justin Ther­oux), Lynch shows us anoth­er star­let (Melis­sa George) in Doris Day drag mouthing Lin­da Scott’s 1961 hit I’ve Told Ev’ry Lit­tle Star’.

The slow cut­ting between the perky per­for­mance in front of the cam­era and the fraught, mean­ing­ful looks being exchanged between Adam and Bet­ty from their van­tage behind the lens encap­su­lates the divide between fan­ta­sy and real­i­ty that pro­vides Mul­hol­land Dri­ve with its under­ly­ing (and trag­ic) dialec­tic. In this explic­it­ly coun­ter­feit con­text, the chip­per dum da dums” of the song’s cho­rus are ren­dered omi­nous and haunt­ing, an ide­al inter­lude for a film that descends into a pil­low-sweat­ing nightmare.

This deft play with sound and image and sly deploy­ment of pop cul­ture sig­ni­fiers is sure­ly the stuff of crit­i­cal exe­ge­sis, and the temp­ta­tion to try to explain” Mul­hol­land Dri­ve and how it rec­on­ciles all of its many split and loose ends is seduc­tive indeed. Even back in 2001, in the rel­a­tive infan­cy of the inter­net, online chat rooms and com­ment sec­tions were a re with the­o­ries about how to best inter­pret Bet­ty and Rita’s adven­tures around Los Ange­les and their appar­ent trans­for­ma­tions, two-thirds of the way through the film, into two com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent women – the strug­gling actress Diane and the Hol­ly­wood doyenne Camilla.

Or was it the oth­er way around: were Bet­ty and Rita the real” char­ac­ters and Diane and Camil­la their dream-fac­to­ry fan­ta­sy pro­jec­tions? And what about the Lynch mob of weirdos and wack­os sur­round­ing them, includ­ing, but not lim­it­ed to, Dan Hedaya and Ange­lo Badala­men­ti as fra­ter­nal Ital­ian hit­men the Cas­tigliani broth­ers; Twin Peaks alum Michael J Ander­son as the diminu­tive crim­i­nal mas­ter­mind Mr Roque; Michael Mont­gomery as a men­ac­ing cow­boy; Bil­ly Ray Cyrus as a pool boy; and one-time screen siren Ann Miller as a kind­ly land­la­dy? Or Robert Forster in a sole scene as a puz­zled police offi­cer? Or the impas­sive, soot-faced fig­ure (a man? A woman? A human being?) crouch­ing behind Winky’s din­er, chal­leng­ing Killer BOB’s posi­tion as the scari­est cre­ation in the director’s repertoire?

Mulholland Drive becomes one of the few films to do something substantial with that hoary old it was all a dream! conceit.

To which we say: don’t wor­ry, it all makes per­fect sense upon reflec­tion (and let’s say prob­a­bly a half-dozen atten­tive repeat view­ings). But Mul­hol­land Dri­ve also doesn’t have to be decod­ed in order to be enjoyed, which is prob­a­bly why it has, per­haps improb­a­bly, endured both as one of Lynch’s most beloved works and as a rou­tine cham­pi­on of best-of-the-decade polls. It may be because it offers more sur­face plea­sure than per­haps any oth­er Lynch film, start­ing with Peter Deming’s glossy, sun­blind cin­e­matog­ra­phy and the screenplay’s many movie indus­try in-jokes, which build on Lost Highway’s embed­ded Tin­sel­town critique.

There, the sto­ry was about a jazz musi­cian drawn into a sor­did coastal under­world of pet­ty crim­i­nals and pornog­ra­phers, with Bill Pullman’s per­for­mance serv­ing as a por­trait of the artist self-com­bust­ing under pres­sure. It may be that Mul­hol­land Dri­ve was more pop­u­lar than its pre­de­ces­sor because, instead of an anguished, five o’clock-shadowed sad­sack as an entry point, it offers up the sweet­ly indomitable Bet­ty, whose pluck­i­ness and careerist ambi­tions are ren­dered ten­der­ly… until, sud­den­ly, they’re not and Watts’ act­ing shifts into a dif­fer­ent reg­is­ter entire­ly, reveal­ing the rejec­tion and bit­ter­ness under­neath the pol­ished façade.

Which brings us to Mul­hol­land Drive’s sec­ond major musi­cal num­ber, set on the main stage at Club Silen­cio, where Bet­ty and Rita take in an ear­ly-morn­ing cabaret show just hours after unex­pect­ed­ly falling into bed with one anoth­er (a scene whose fleshy eroti­cism splits the dif­fer­ence between pas­sion­ate romance and audi­ence pan­der­ing). As the club’s MC Richard Green explains the dif­fer­ence between truth and illu­sion, the women start to look wor­ried, and when the head­lin­er (Rebekah Del Rio as her­self ) comes out to sing a Span­ish-lan­guage ver­sion of Roy Orbison’s Cry­ing’, they break down togeth­er into the very tears described in the song’s lyrics.

The sequence is a mas­ter­piece of care­ful­ly craft­ed affect, as De Rio’s des­per­ate melan­choly is trans­ferred first to Bet­ty and Rita and then to us in the audi­ence. From some­where inside the arch­ly art-direct­ed vac­u­um of Club Silen­cio, Lynch con­jures up emo­tions no less pow­er­ful for being so inscrutably gen­er­at­ed. The kick­er is that when Del Rio faints dead away, the song con­tin­ues, reveal­ing that she’s been lip-synch­ing the whole time – an ersatz aria.

It is at this point that Mul­hol­land Dri­ve turns itself inside-out and forces us to ask if every­thing we’ve seen, includ­ing and espe­cial­ly Bet­ty and Rita’s romance, is sim­i­lar­ly phoney, and to con­front the fact that a movie that has got­ten us swept up in the intrigue and excite­ment of Hol­ly­wood is exam­in­ing those fan­tasies. It’s not sim­ply that Betty/​Diane is anoth­er of Lynch’s mul­ti­ple-per­son­al­i­ty pro­tag­o­nists, like tramp-next-door Lau­ra Palmer or Pullman’s exis­ten­tial­ly fig­ure-eight­ed Fred Madison.

By ret­ro­spec­tive­ly unveil­ing its (anti)-heroine’s denial of who she real­ly is (and the ter­ri­ble things she’s done) as an extend­ed fugue state indis­tin­guish­able from the lus­cious­ly old-school thriller we’ve been watch­ing all along, Mul­hol­land Dri­ve becomes one of the few films to do some­thing sub­stan­tial with that hoary old it was all a dream!’ con­ceit. Betty’s awak­en­ing to her true nature is not a way out of the sto­ry, for her or the audience.

Instead, it’s a way into the idea that in keep­ing real­i­ty at arm’s length, cin­e­ma sus­tains us because of, rather than in spite of, its essen­tial­ly decep­tive nature. As long as the lights stay down and the song keeps play­ing, we at once rehearse and delay our reck­on­ing with the things that exist beyond the frame. Mul­hol­land Dri­ve is great film art because it ful­ly inhab­its its cho­sen medi­um while remind­ing us how ephemer­al it is in the end. Cin­e­ma – and life – is but a dream. The rest is Silencio.

You might like