Steve’s Stuff

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.

Helvetica is an interesting documentary about something that
superficially appears banal - the ubiquitous san serif font. This is a
stylish film that is actually about a lot more than typography.

The film pursues two angles. The first deals with typography directly
and is more expository in nature. It’s the ostensible topic of the
film, but the interest comes from the second angle, which deals with
issues of modernism, postmodernism, and the aesthetics of graphic
design. Yes, it’s interesting to learn about typography, but
typography is not an art per se (nor am I suggesting that the film
makes this claim). Rather, it is the manner its used that has the
potential to rise above its market-driven function and become an
artistic statement.

The film really hits its stride after about 40 minutes when the
modernism bubble bursts and we start getting a lot of resistance to
the world-wide helvetica saturation. After hearing modernist designers
extol the virtues of its clean lines and clarity, it’s nice to hear
some postmodernists begin to deconstruct its undercurrent of
conformity. By the end of the film, we’ve come back to a place where
helvetica is no longer mass market taboo and graphic designers are
free to use it, so long as they some how subvert its structure.

The best part about the film is that it really lays out the
modern/postmodern debate clearly by using something to which everyone
can relate. A comparison of modernist and postmodernist painting is
sure to leave those unfamiliar with the field of 20th century painting
confused, but by using something everyone has a lot of experience
with, the issues become increasingly clear.

I have a few issues with the film that keep me from giving it five
stars. It feels a bit long for its subject matter. There are quite a
few montage sections showing how the Helvetica typeface surrounds us
everywhere. I think most people get the picture within a few minutes.
All these montages feel a bit like filler. While it’s an engaging
topic, I’m not sure that it’s a “feature-length” topic. “Helvetica”
seemed to be a great 60-minute documentary that unfortunately ran 80
minutes.

Also, some of the interviewees are a bit fanatical about typography.
At least one individual borders on the verge of typographic fetishism.
I know the difference between enthusiasm and fetishism and this was
clearly the latter. You’ll see what I mean. I don’t mind that this guy
holds this position, but I think it weakens some of the arguments that
others make in support of the aesthetic complexity of typography.

In conclusion, I’ll say that “Helvetica” is a very nice documentary.
It’s not on the same level as, say, “Gates of Heaven” or “Shoah”, but
it’s solid. It’s definitely worth renting. I’m not sure how much
replay value is present - I don’t think I will watch it again soon,
only because it was straight-forward. It’s accessible enough to engage
individuals who don’t typically watch documentaries. It’s definitely
one you can watch with your friends.

I just watched the original Black Christmas and I’m not quite sure what to think. It predates John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) by four years and now that there is a 2006 remake, people are starting to ask questions - questions that don’t need asking. Did Black Christmas inspire Halloween? Is Black Christmas the film that is actually responsible for the glut of slasher pics in the 80s?

Since the movie industry sees fit to remake every previously released movie in the history of film (did we really need a remake of Rollerball???), Black Christmas is getting some attention from new viewers. It’s pretty unlikely that Carpenter based his film on this. His style has a lot more to do with Hitchcock and suspense filmmaking in general. If Carpenter based Halloween on Black Christmas, it would look something like this . . .

0:00 Titles
0:05 Michael Meyers comes to Haddonfield
0:10 Mindless chatter from annoying characters
0:12 Michael kills someone
0:15 The characters hang out
0:35 Michael kills someone else
0:36 The characters don’t seem to notice and go on with their boring lives
0:45 Michael kills someone else
0:46 More boring insight into the lives of stereotypical sorority girls
1:00 Michael stalks someone creating suspense
1:01 Michael kills someone ending the suspense
1:02 Characters begin to wonder if something is up
1:20 One more suspense/murder
1:30 The End.

Instead of that stratagy, Carpenter decides to go for the steady suspense all the way through, constantly escalating the level of terror in the audience and in the film. They’re two different approaches. One gives you five or six suspenseful moments and the other gives you one loooooong suspenseful movie.

So, it’s unlikely that Carpenter copied the film. What about all the other movies? If Black Christmas was so influential, why did studios wait until after Halloween to start churning out copy-cat films? Who even heard of Black Christmas until a few months ago?

With that said, it has some powerful moments. It’s remarkable in its excessive use of profanity. Tarantino has a lot of profanity in his films, but it doesn’t seem out of place. The hitmen in Pulp Fiction would most definitely use that type of language as would a deadly female assassin in Kill Bill. An old lady who runs a sorority house probably wouldn’t and when every other word is profane, it kind of sticks out. People go out of their way to curse in this film - they bend over backwards to curse. They let loose a string of obscenities over trivial things like looking for the pet cat! It’s hilarious and adds a lot of character to the film. It was, after, the 70s.

Besides that, one of the kills is interesting, the soundtrack is creepy, there’s a pianist that performs an atonal piece that sounds kind of like the harmonies of Bela Bartok and the violence of gesture of Henry Cowell with the performance practice of Cecil Taylor. Oh yeah - and there are a LOT of creepy phone calls. Very effective sound design.

However, it’s no Halloween and it doesn’t have the camp value of Friday the 13th. It’s a fun curiosity item, but it’s no trendsetter.