This week's readings:
- Massumi, “Strange Horizon” (coursepack)
- Check out reader John Cunningham's very short theory of the box, in response to last week's Salon.com essay. His ideas connect in some ways with Massumi's.
1) Sum up one key idea from the selection by Massumi. How might Massumi's ideas relate to Mulholland Drive, even though he's not talking about film specifically?
2) In preparation for group work on the film that will begin this week, post one (1) paragraph that includes all three of these:
- one preliminary “research question” concerning the film—something that intrigues you enough to think about it for a while. This must be in the form of a question.
- a possible method you'd use to approach that question. This method should reflect what you've learned thus far from the theories and methods we've encountered in the course.
- one scene from the film you’d focus on, in order to investigate that question.
11 comments:
Week ?
Christina Freiberg
Massumi’s article, “Strange Horizon,” discusses the viewer’s proprioception and the cognitive map. In relating to the senses, more importantly synaesthesia, he discusses how the human body works to in relation to what they see. For example, if someone is about to have their right hand chopped off, the viewer might start feeling a pain or sensation in their right hand. It is these moments that make the senses become abstract and confused because usually humans have cognitive maps. They function like mental maps, identifying a person to their surroundings, often relying on past sensations. It is how we orient ourselves to our surroundings, just like proprioception acts as a cognitive map of the senses.
In relation to “Mulholland Drive,” these two ideas seem to work hand-in-hand. First of all, “Mulholland Drive” is a very surreal experience. It departs from classical narrative structure as the viewer is taken through different narrative structures and plots. The first thing to argue is that, if no one is used to seeing an abstract, Lynchian type of film, then the viewer’s cognitive map of narrative structure is thrown off balance. What they are experiencing is something new. Since the narrative adopts many ambiguous and vague plots or sub-plots, their proprioception is working more intently. The senses kick in when something new is being experienced. It is processing a new cognitive map because “Mulholland Drive’s” complex narrative makes the viewer often second guess or re-evaluate what it is they are seeing (and also trying to comprehend the images to create a narrative structure). Also, like cognitive maps, each individual watching the film has their own perception that is unique and different from everyone else. This means that my own interpretation or cognitive map of “Mulholland Drive” will be completely different from some one else’s because we would be having two different reactions to the film.
For the group assignment, my research question would be how does someone go about assembling a story line for “Mulholland Drive” when everyone’s experience will completely different from mine? Does David Lynch hold the key to the film’s meaning or does he leave it ambiguous so the viewer can participate in creating their own narrative structure? The method of approach would be analytical and critical, citing works like Massumi, Brodwell, and Mulvey to create or comprehend an interpretation of the film and relating it to different viewer’s and their experience. One scene in particular would be the analysis of the homeless man behind the dumpsters. What emotion does he invoke from the viewer’s? How does he fit into the overall narrative structure? How does his involvement in the film lead to different interpretations, especially analyzing what he represents in the beginning of the film and in the end.
The article by Brian Massumi was an amazing look at the corporeal response to stimuli in the human life. His insight into the proprioception that we all go through as we move and guide our way through the physical world is very interesting. As we think of this idea in terms of narrative structure and storytelling in the film of Mulholland Drive, we should imagine ourselves in the film itself. Standing in the film, and identifying a beginning and an end, would it be possible to take the mind on a synaesthesia tour through the film. His ideas about taking stimuli from the world and interpreting them into an actual way of seeing will be very helpful in a movie where we feel ultimately blindfolded.
The Online piece was an interesting read regarding the many works of David Lynch in relation to understanding Mulholland Drive. I however did not feel as though he needed to try to understand the film in a narrative sense.
For the group assignment part in class I would like to look at the film as simply a long dramatic joke. I have been torn as whether or not to look at the movie from a narrative sense of from a technical viewpoint. I really feel as though the film is a satirical look at the dual nature of Hollywood. This would include looking at its pretentious and pious precedents and its glorified image of itself. I would also look at the way these old men control Hollywood and control actors and directors and put a fear around everything in the upper echelons of Hollywood. David Lynch I know has dealt with an uncooperative Hollywood in the past and is continuing to have trouble with them now.
1.
In his book “Parables of the Future,” Brian Massumi has an eye on architectural practice while discussing how humans actually perceive the world and their surroundings. He argues that we are constantly constructing our own realities of the world -- using visual clues, personal history, and cognitive mapping. Rather than an orderly understanding of concrete details based on simple cognition, we construct a world based on a mishmash of external and internal forces. The world that is “real” to each of us is actually a complicated individual creation separate from the reality of any other. The obvious relationship of this theory to “Mulholland Drive” is that it attempts to show us another’s “construct” of the world. Diane’s experience is much more than an omnipotent observer could record, and that is exactly what Massumi and Lynch have come to understand. New vistas immediately appear when Massumi, Lynch, or anyone else comes to see -- or believe -- that this creational process is the reality of human experience. There is no single “truth” of experience -- rather, we are left with an interweaving of individual constructs that never actually combine into a single, unified whole.
2.
What filmmaking tools – representational and non-representational, abstract and concrete -- does David Lynch utilize and what do they communicate to us, the viewers, in the scene at Club Silencio? After perhaps my sixth or seventh viewing of “Mulholland Drive,” I finally lost my “this is a strange movie that doesn’t need to be understood” reserve and was incredibly moved by the scene in Club Silencio. In this single scene, all of the theorizing and intellectualizing about Lynch and his movie became something much more profound – an intensely felt sadness, a eureka flash of story-line recognition, and connectedness to our protagonist. I would like to engage in a speculative close textual analysis that includes an in-depth look at the symbolic and non-representational elements in the scene in an effort to better understand its power. While not limiting myself to only these tools, I would utilize textual analysis as described by Mulvey, and explore the non-representational and symbolic for meaning as described by Adrian Martin in a close analysis of the scene. I believe Lynch makes very specific decisions about mise en scene, symbology, color, language, content, sound and more as a filmmaker trying to both move and enlighten his audience with Club Silencio. I would like to engage in close prospecting of these details in order to expose and examine Lynch’s methods and their impact.
Massumi’s “Strange Horizon” spoke about defining conscious experience and perception into measurable terms or diagrams we can visualize. He discusses different systems of memory which help aid in the autonomous actions we take part in like navigating a familiar building using proprioception but makes a point that this system is separated from visual memory. You don’t remember how you got to where you were going but you remember the “paths” and “body rhythms” that happened as you got there. Massumi goes on to explain, even though I fail to see the connection to his previous statements, that there is a “mobius ribbon” shaped structural representation for our self-referential moments where we realize the limitations of our own perception. He calls this “the folding back of the facedness of experience on itself” and says that digital tools could offer help toward Architecture to building a representation. He lists an example toward the end of his article, which I thought would fully explain his points to me but only made it just as confusing after revisiting it, “Perhaps schizophrenia involves a continual, involuntary awareness of the double-facedness-to-infinity endemic to experience.”
Perhaps what Massumi is obsessing over is modeled quite obviously in David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive. Here the story, order of events, and self-referential repetition feels like that same mobius ribbon and its behavior (also mentioned in the Cunningham entry). It would be interesting to try and diagram or visually represent the story’s “shape” and “path” from an architectural standpoint. Here a great understanding for this mobius concept could be realized and reinterpreted. I still think that the “Shift” in the film is a good place to revisit however the very beginning and end of the film may also prove to be vital in understanding the construction or shape of the film and how it double backs to mend together the way this mobius ribbon does.
In “Strange Horizons,” Brian Massumi argues for one’s “proprioceptive knowledge,” e.g., one’s basic understanding of their bodily positions and movement by means of self-reference. Massumi thesis argues that humans operate on two separate systems of reference, or that we operate mentally with two different types of memory maps: both a proprioceptive and a visual system of self-reference. Massumi explains that the action of simultaneity between the two works as a “sysnesthetic system of cross-referencing” which supplements each other (182). This theory becomes relatable to Lynch’s Mulholland Drive in the sense that the film cannot be examined solely one or the other of these systems of self-reference. In specific, the fragmentation of Lynch’s narrative derails the viewer’s previous, conditioned mental map of linier film narrative.
To be sure, Massumi’s theory might mesh well with Bordwell’s concerns about fragmented narratives in the context of the slippery narrative, if such a narrative exists, within Lynch’s Mulholland Drive. Bordwell suggests that: “The relentless forward march of stimuli in a film puts an extra strain on the spectator’s memory and inferential processes. A filmmaker who presents story events out of chronological order,” he argues, “thus risks forcing the spectator to choose between reconstructing story order and losing track of current action” (14). In light of the theories raised in the works of both Massumi and Bordwell, I too would examine the relationship between the homeless man/woman behind the dinner to this idea of narrative disruption for the viewer via fragmentation. Indeed, how does this character affect this relentless march forward for spectators? Moreover and more specifically, how does this character effect, or problematize, proprioceptive knowledge within the viewer as both an on and off-screen entity during the dream-telling sequence at the dinner?
"Strange Horizons" to me talked about how we have this preconsieved notion of how we see the universe and we get used the way we exist throughout our lives. But, sometimes, you snap into something that is going on that makes you realize that the way you think things are going is completely wrong or opposite. I think this pertains to Mulholland Drive because at first we have these other straight narrative films that we've watched like Taxi Driver and The Searchers and now we find out that this movie is completely the opposite structure. We only realize this after we're already engaged with finding the story so far and a revelation takes place that you have to completely rethink how you thought about what has happened in the film beforehand.
At what point in watching Mulholand Drive do you realize you're watching something different and how does your mind except that and alter its patterns to help you access it easier? One way you could answer that is by studying what story elements show up that coincide together or compliment them and find out what is actually important to the story. The scene that could be used as the basis is the transition scene, where the cowboy tells her to "Wake up" and the movie completely changes gears.
Reid Goldberg
In his article Massumi discusses the concept of proprioception, which he describes as “a self-referential sense, in that what it most directly registers are displacements of the parts of the body relative to each other” (Massumi 179). He makes mention of how this sense allows us to have a frame of reference for ourselves at all times by using the idea of simply walking somewhere. It requires both self-reference but a visual system as well, in which a person does not always have to look where they’re going when they can rely on their memory. Massumi also discusses landmarks as a way for one to find his or her way around. More or less the article is about orientation, and the tools we use in our everyday lives to make sense of physical self as well as our physical surroundings. In relation to Mulholland Drive, the film is quite bizarre with surreal qualities, which disorients the viewer. In turn, it forces the viewer use some of Massumi’s concepts for orientation such as self-reference, in other words, where the viewer may need to retrieve his or her bearings at certain moments of the films. Mulholland Drive also uses “landmarks” such as the box, its key, the fifty thousand dollars, etc.
The scene I would like to view again is when Betty and Rita go to Club Silencio. This scene is almost a summary of the entire film, where it was previously and where it is going from this point. The fact that the man says, “It is a tape. This is all an allusion,” says something not only about the film, but Hollywood as well. My question is this: With Mulholland Drive, what suggestions and/or observations is David Lynch making about Hollywood and the world it encompasses. I think that the film is excellent at depicting the mysteries that surround the film business with things such as studio executives, false hopes/dreams, and illusions.
Massumi's article is a rumination of the relationship between body, sense and space. While not specifically talking about film, the relation between architecture and film is a strong and often overlooked relationship.
Specifically, Massumi talks about two things which relate directly to film structure: orientation and synethesia. Film is a synesthetic movement through cinematic space. We must transfer our senses into the visual and aural in order to make sense of a visual construction . A film's structure is in some sense the same as architecture, being designed to guide us through space.
As Massumi wrote about his spatial perception inside his building and attempts to reconcile his sense and vision, it reminded me of a passage from "Body, Memory, and Architecture" by Kent Bloomer and Charles Moore:
"One tell-tale sign remains, in modern American, of a world based not on Cartesian abstraction on our sense of ourselves extended beyond the boundaries of our bodies to the world around: that is the single family house, free-standing like ourselves, with a face and a back, a hearth(like a heart)and...an attic full of recollections of up and a basement full harboring implications of down."
It's this synesthetic extension of self that guides Massumi through his work space regardless of orientation. Architecture guides him through the space, just as structure guide us through the cinematic space, when competent, without unintended disorientation.
Of course, in relationship to Mulholland Drive, this movement through the cinematic space becomes questionable as a research question. What is one identifiable element that Lynch uses to keep us guided through this space, even though the narrative of Mulholland drive can result in so many interpretations? Or rather how does Lych trick us into thinking that there is a story here at all? How does he get away with so many dead ends so transparently?
This question is even more evident when you consider John Cunnigham's Reader response, in conjunction with "Everything You Wanted to Know About Mulholland Drive." Is the real reason that so many different reads can come out of the same "narrative" is that suddenly, because of the topology of Lynch's structure, we cannot separate this movie from ourselves as Lynch guides us through what amounts to a series of self-referential Hollywood biograms we are completely comfortable with? Specifically, I would like to look at the wrap up scenes, beginning with Diane's ascent to the party. There are no answers here, only the appearance of answers.
Massumi's arcticle is actually about architecture and how one views where they are. He tells one story about how he thought he was looking north, but actually he was looking east, and he had a weird sensation of misplaced buildings and his reality was changed. I think this relates to Mulholland Dr. a lot because throughout the entire film it is human nature to try and find a narrative story, and a little more than halfway through everything changes and the first time you view the film it is a huge reality shift. Everything seen up to that point is changed and the viewer starts grasping for reality and the film never lets up. Mulholland Dr. is a very unique film in that sense.
My research question would deal with the reality in Mulholland Dr. I know that it could be argued that nothing is real, but I would like to see if one could find events in the film that can be agreed upon as real events. I know it would be impossible to completely pick apart the film and point out the real and the dream. I have my own guesses as to whats real in the film. Personally, I think that Diane never dated Camilla, I think that was all made up to explain why who we thought was the neighbor broke up with her. It would explain why she was getting boxes from Dianes house and only going a few places down. They broke up, and the blue key was the neighbors old key to Dianes apartment. Thats what I love about this film, there are so many conclusions a person could come to. A scene I would like to look at would be the scene right after Diane gets the coffee, when the neighbor comes to get her dishes. I would like to few that scene again to see if my theory could hold water.
In “Strange Horizon: Buildings, Biograms and the Body Topologic” Brian Massumi mainly focuses on the body’s knowledge of certain things (direction is a main one) when the mind is not paying attention. He relates a lot to his own experience, such as not being able to picture or mark out the route he takes from the buildings entrance to his office, but is totally capable of making the short journey everyday. He refers to this as ‘non-visual memory’, instead of seeing certain things along the way it is merely a series of twists and turns. He mentions a ‘sixth sense’: proprioception, which he describes as a self-referential sense that registers displacements of the parts of the body relative to each other. Massumi says this is the operating system used when one makes an everyday, so well known journey that there is no real need for visual awareness.
There was one particular part of the essay which made me think of last week’s discussion of Mulholland Drive.
“It took a moment’s effort to replace what positively hadn’t been there with what plainly was. When you actively see something that isn’t there, there is only one thing you can call it: a hallucination.”
I in particular thought of the scene at the diner, in which Dan tells Herb of his dream and as they move outside towards the back of the diner the sound becomes less clear, the figure Dan, and we the audience, see behind the diner is a hallucination.
In regards to Mulholland Drive I would like to condsider how David Lynch allows dream and reality to intermingle so well within the film. One scene is that in the diner, and other being the opening of the box, which is considered the turning point between the two halves of the film: dream and reality.
The scene I would like to focus on is the Club Silencio scene. I would like to look at that scene to talk about Hollywood and cinema in general. The man says, "This is all an allusion."
It is an illusion when we watch a film. The act of viewing single frames of film put together and running them at speed that gives them the illusion of motion. Then you add the illusion of actors pretending to be other people and throwing in a narrative story or in Mulhulland Drive's case an unique story. In film for the most part you don't see the people making and creating the film its kind of like the Wizard of Oz with the man behind the curtain. Almost everything about cinema is an illusion.
I would use David Bordwell's discussion about the role of the spectator and Laura Mulvey's textual analysis to try and figure out the question I put forward.
Sebastian Juarez
PS Since I have not posted before here is my link to my blogspot:
http://film320sjuarez.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment