Steve’s Stuff

This book is not what one would hope. Beyond the frequent factual mistakes (dates, chronology, plot, etc.), there is a deeper issue. Mikita Brottman claims to be helping us understand the importance of these films by showing us hidden qualities that redeem them from their exploitation roots. However, her prejudices are obvious - she is unable to engage these films as worthy of study without demonstrating that she is academically and intellectually superior.

Granted, Herschel Gordon Lewis was not a cinematic genius (although he does have a PhD in English or literature), but he wasn’t the simple-minded idiot Brottman describes him as. She ignores one of the most interesting aspects of his career: he was able to put the stamp of his personal vision on each of his films, independent of the financial forces that typically control directors and drive them to make derivative junk.

In describing the films she claims to redeem, she ends up contributing to the negative hype surrounding them by describing them as “so sick, depraved, and unwatchable that the view becomes physically ill.” Seriously - Blood Feast is nothing compared to some more contemporary films. It may have been shocking at one time, but now I seriously doubt its ability to make someone physically ill. It’s just so cheesy and unintentionally hilarious that I don’t think anyone is watching it in the way that Brottman seems to think they are. I don’t know anyone who put the DVD in, watched, and became horrified. On the other hand, I DO know many people who watched the film for its comic value. From this perspective, I believe many of her arguments are weak.

She makes a few statements that really makes one question just how many times she watched some of these films. There are plenty of mistakes in the chapter on “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, but the most disturbing is that she falls victim to the same trap that many critics succumbed to: namely, the amount of gore in the film. She describes the film as using (amongst other things), advanced special effects. This is absolutely untrue. They intentionally *avoided* gore both because it would be difficult to pass the censorship board and because they weren’t interested in exploitation. Many people learned from “Psycho” that you don’t need blood to terrify. Carpenter’s “Halloween” has almost no blood, nor does Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Tobe Hooper focused on suspense and a horrifying environment of terror rather than the cheap, visceral effect of blood and guts. From Brottman’s comments, we can see that she will never be guilty of a thorough understanding of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, as she sees fit to completely misunderstand the filmmakers intentions (probably a result of her elitist need to marginalize the director).

My final criticism is that her idea of art is much different from mine. She sees directors like Jorg Buttergeit (the Nekromantic series and Schramm) as art-house directors while seeing Gaspar Noe (Irreversible) as exploitation masters in the style of David Freidman and Herschel Gordon Lewis. Just compare “Irreversible” with “Nekromantic”: Irreversible has a real visual style, a message, and creatively explores the medium of the teleological narrative. Nekromantic is an exercise in invoking the taboo taken to pointlessly nauseating levels. And for what point? To show that necrophiliacs are people too? I’d rather deal with a serious and skillfully portrayed meditation on the base instincts of the human condition rather than watching a necrophiliac make love to a cheesy fake body.

Brottman is entitled to her opinion and if she doesn’t want to see Noe as an artistic director, that’s her right. However, it shows me that I don’t agree with her on fundamental issues and therefore, I cannot accept many of her points. There ARE some nice sections and the writing style is readable. It’s not elegant by any stretch, but it’s not as dry as some scholarly texts. If you’re a big fan of exploitation film or the so-called “low culture”, you’ll probably find some interesting ideas in this book, as I did. However, they are buried and you’ll have to make a number of allowances for Brottman’s mistakes and odd opinions. What a shame - it could have been so much better.

Universal finally got around to releasing Lynch’s “Lost Highway” on DVD! Most of you are already well aware that there was never a proper domestic release of the film. It was available from Canada in a hideous pan and scan version complete with terrible color and brightness levels that made the film difficult to watch.

Before discussing this particular DVD, I’d like to include a few comments on the film itself. There are a lot of people that will say this film makes no sense, that it’s meaningless, or even pointless. I would like to counter that by saying, the film is full of meaning, but it’s like a puzzle and you can’t expect to figure it out on one or two viewings alone. There are so many fascinating details and connections that present themselves upon subsequent viewings that I really believe it’s worth it to spend some time with “Lost Highway”.

I don’t want to give away plot information or even present some common interpretations of the film. At least 30% of the fun comes from post-viewing discussions where you and your friends attempt to make sense of the pieces. If you are just dying to get some easy answers, they’re already covered in Lynch discussion boards all around the web. I’m much more interested in helping new viewers approach the film to get the most out of it on the first viewing.

I think the first viewing should be a purely sensual experience where you can take in the atmosphere and react to the film on a gut level. It’s going to make you scratch your head, but it’s such a wild ride that I think it’s fun without even understanding everything. The second time you watch it, look for details - themes, motives, repetition - there are clues all over the place.

In interviews, Lynch admitted that he and Barry Gifford (the writer) included certain elements so that the film would *not* ever completely resolve, no matter how you put it together. Think of the blue box in “Mulholland Drive” - it’s a fantastic element that probably exists only symbolically. If you separate certain features of “Mulholland Drive”, the film eventually makes sense. The same goes for “Lost Highway” - there are real events, symbolic events, and imaginary events. A great first step is deciding in which category specific events fall.

Now onto this particular DVD release:

The rumor websites have been talking about a brand new 5.1 mix, and given Lynch’s obsession with top-quality video, I’m hoping that this will be the best “Lost Highway” release ever. However, while this DVD will probably be a big step up in terms of quality and availability, I’m disappointed that Universal didn’t do more. “Blade Runner” fans waited years for a proper DVD release, but they were eventually rewarded with a total of NINE different editions (including both HDDVD and Bluray) - why couldn’t they at very least give “Lost Highway” fans a special edition? I have the Region 2 UK double-disc edition and it’s great. The featurettes, interviews, and such are out there already, so why not include them?

The only real extra is a 10-part, multi-angle interview with Lynch. Since the Lynch interview on the Region 2 release is fairly brief, I’m guessing this is something new, recorded recently. Those familiar with Lynch know what to expect - he’s going to tell interesting stories without explaining anything in the film. I’m sure it will be very cool, but what about the extra scenes that are floating around? Universal could have done a lot more.

“Lost Highway” is such a puzzling, but engaging film. I highly recommend it to any fan of Lynch’s. It’s not the best Lynch film to start with if you haven’t seen any yet. It’s not as straightforward as “Blue Velvet” and it’s trickier than “Mulholland Drive”, but it’s got a wonderfully dark atmosphere that fills the screen with Lynchian dread. It’s an experience. Enjoy.