Skip to main content

Call me. Dial your number. Go ahead.

Lost Highway
(1997)

(SPOILERS) ‘90s David Lynch might have been “purer” in its distillation of weirdness, but generally speaking I found it less satisfying than his ‘80s experimentations with studios and pre-existing source material. There was Twin Peaks, of course, several of the episodes he directed ranking among the best things he has ever done, but his features lacked something, revealing themselves as either a hip, pop version of his sensibility (Wild at Heart) that would predict much of the “colourful” pulp revelry of Tarantino and his imitators, or a distended, half-masterfully dark, half-distractingly ungainly bookend to his cancelled TV show (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, which despite its subsequent re-evaluation, is still a bit of a bodge). Lost Highway arrived five years after, his third collaboration with Barry Gifford (after Wild at Heart and Hotel Room) and is at once as wilfully weird as you’d expect from Lynch, replete with de rigueur doppelgangers, fractured time and shaken identities, yet curiously reductive for the first time, such that the uncanny could be wrapped in a neatly explicable bow.


Do you want an easily digestible Lynch film? I mean, all his pictures have unique and elusive aesthetics (images, sounds), but more specifically in terms of character and tenor? Because Lost Highway, really, is no more special than Shutter Island directed by someone who takes crazy pills for breakfast (or TM pills). Perhaps that’s the Gifford influence, but the picture suffers more from its dive into an alt-reality than Wild at Heart does into a heightened one.


Perhaps, if we were left thinking that Fred (Bill Pullman) really did swap with Pete (Balthazar Getty) and that Renee really did have a noir femme fatale twin/double Alice (Patricia Arquette), rather than Pete and Alice being the products of a “psychogenic fugue” resulting from Fred’s brutal murder of Renee, there’d be more to chew on abstractly. As Lynch put it, in worryingly lucid language (it ought to be a concern, if he’s making sense and easy to pin down), “The persons suffering from it creates in their mind a completely new identity, new friends, new home, new everything – they forget their past identity”. He also compared it to the OJ Simpson murder case.


But the picture begins intriguingly enough. Sure, elements don’t quite satisfy. Bill Pullman is as much of a blank here as he is in any of his lead performances, but initially at least, you wonder if this might be intentional, that he and his alter ego are supposed to be interchangeable canvasses upon whom it’s impossible to project very much. The problem there is, even if that’s the case, it doesn’t make for compelling viewing. Some actors ask to be watched, and neither the leading men in Lost Highway do that.


Consequently, when we see Bill grunting and sweating away on his sax, we’re not entirely sure this isn’t supposed to be as self-parodic as the gangster movie Fred falls into (as Jeremiah Kipp notes, for all his rage – a distillation of Fred’s? – Robert Loggia’s Mr Eddy is a kind of toothless Frank Booth; ironic, as Lynch cast Loggia based on his expletive-fuelled reaction to missing that role).


And yet, Robert Blake’s Mystery Man is a marvellously iconic character/villain, deserving of a better picture, and the unnerving first (second?) meeting at a Hollywood party, as the Man informs Fred he has met him before, at his house (“As a matter of act, I’m there, right now”), handing him his chunky cell phone as confirmation, is a classic Lynch scene for all the right reality-bending reasons.


The Mystery Man might be regarded as the shadow self of Fred and Pete, leading him both from and to self-recognition. Of course, there’s a case to be made that Pete is, in fact, the original deal and Fred his construct, owing to the detectives at Andy’s mansion discovering his print’s (not Fred’s) “all over this place”. That might be intriguing if it altered the basic set up in some way, but it doesn’t. Not really. Indeed, I’d suggest that, rather than seeing this as “objective” reality, it’s a signifier of the addled existence Fred/Pete is experiencing (the Mystery Man has just been interrogating Pete with “And your name? What the fuck is your name?”)


Patricia Arquette delivers a far superior performance to her insubstantial co-leads, although her delivery is sometimes pitched on the inaudible side and it’s difficult to escape the impression that Lynch isn’t just flagrantly objectifying her, be it in the sex scenes or Mr Eddy’s “audition” in front of a room full of gangsters (the seedy underbelly here has no resonance in the way it does in Blue Velvet, it’s only ever a distant construct).


I had a similar response to the underused Natasha Gregson Warner as Pete’s dumped girlfriend Sheila, who seems to have been cast on the basis of her breasts. There has always been a voyeuristic angle to sex and nudity in Lynch pictures, but hitherto it has felt integral to the story being told. Here, it just comes across voyeuristic, at the whim of David.


Also problematic are the obvious cameos, including Richard Pryor, Marilyn Manson and Henry Rollins. They stick out the way Clooney or Travolta do in The Thin Red Line, distracting from the material. On the other hand, Gary Busey is great as Pete’s dad; you can see a whole backstory of him and wife Candace (Lucy Butler), middle-aged spread ex-bikers, reduced to passive medication by TV, not so far from Emilio Estevez’ transfixed folks in Repo Man.


Michael Massee (sadly recently deceased), who brings something of a Willem Dafoe-esque sleaze bag to his minor role, and Blake (whose striking appearance was all his idea, which given his troubled life is unsurprising) are also standouts. Jack Nance, in his final Lynch appearance, plays a mechanic protesting at Pete changing the music station. Indeed, it’s unfortunate that Pete, with his being a grease monkey, biking and involvement with a dangerous girl (and his musical side), reminds one of the least interesting character in Twin Peaks, James Hurley. Or perhaps that’s intentional again.


Part of Lost Highway’s problem is that it doesn’t feel like a film Lynch was compelled to make. It’s more like a doodle of various interests and obsessions, lacking an essential quality. Even the soundtrack, often the best aspect of his pictures, is burdened by some impulsive decisions (I love the use of Bowie’s I’m Deranged on the opening and closing titles, and Trent Reznor’s contributions feel entirely appropriate, but Marilyn Manson and the impossible to take seriously Rammstein by Rammstein are eclectic yet also cumulatively less distinctive than we have come to expect from the director). Nevertheless, being a Lynch joint, the sound design is richly unsettling, underscoring every scene and invariably proving instrumental in ensuring they carry the impact they do.


Jonathan Rosenbaum commented of the picture that Lynch “hasn’t developed his themes one iota in a quarter of a century” but I’d argue it’s less flattering than that. He seems to have actively regressed here, to junk psychology and undisguised adolescent ogling. There are great moments in Lost Highway, but also long stretches where the atmosphere just isn’t enough, less-than-compelling protagonist(s) failing to take up the slack. Even the picture’s great advocates seem to acknowledge its great deficiencies. It would take getting out of, rather than being under, his own skin to get back on track.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're skipping Christmas! Isn't that against the law?

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
Ex-coke dealer Tim Allen’s underwhelming box office career is, like Vince Vaughn’s, regularly in need of a boost from an indiscriminate public willing to see any old turkey posing as a prize Christmas comedy.  He made three Santa Clauses, and here is joined by Jamie Lee Curtis as a couple planning to forgo the usual neighbourhood festivities for a cruise.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

We’ll bring it out on March 25 and we’ll call it… Christmas II!

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)
(SPOILERS) Alexander Salkind (alongside son Ilya) inhabited not dissimilar territory to the more prolific Dino De Laurentis, in that his idea of manufacturing a huge blockbuster appeared to be throwing money at it while being stingy with, or failing to appreciate, talent where it counted. Failing to understand the essential ingredients for a quality movie, basically, something various Hollywood moguls of the ‘80s would inherit. Santa Claus: The Movie arrived in the wake of his previously colon-ed big hit, Superman: The Movie, the producer apparently operating under the delusion that flying effects and :The Movie in the title would induce audiences to part with their cash, as if they awarded Saint Nick a must-see superhero mantle. The only surprise was that his final cinematic effort, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, wasn’t similarly sold, but maybe he’d learned his lesson by then. Or maybe not, given the behind-camera talent he failed to secure.

When primal forces of nature tell you to do something, the prudent thing is not to quibble over details.

Field of Dreams (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s a near-Frank Darabont quality to Phil Alden Robinson producing such a beloved feature and then subsequently offering not all that much of note. But Darabont, at least, was in the same ballpark as The Shawshank Redemption with The Green MileSneakers is good fun, The Sum of All Our Fears was a decent-sized success, but nothing since has come close to his sophomore directorial effort in terms of quality. You might put that down to the source material, WP Kinsella’s 1982 novel Shoeless Joe, but the captivating magical-realist balance hit by Field of Dreams is a deceptively difficult one to strike, and the biggest compliment you can play Robinson is that he makes it look easy.

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club (1999)
(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…