I have read a couple of reviews that have a different take on this film. The central issue is the story that Alvin tells the young pregnant girl about Rose's children. He says, "Someone else was supposed to be watchin' them, and there was a fire, and her second boy got burned real bad." One article argues that Alvin's vague references—"someone else" — and passive constructions — "there was a fire" and "got burned" — imply that he was the "someone else" who let Rose's children get hurt and then get taken from her.The article says another clue is the burning house that appears in the background as Alvin flies down the hill. "This scene functions as a flashback to the earlier fire, the one in which Alvin's grandchildren were burned. Alvin's face, bathed in sweat and flickering orange with firelight, and his eyes, bulging and rolling in his head like a frightened animal's, express a terror that transcends his immediate situation. When intercut with those quick, jarring shots of the blazing house. The real object of that terror is unmistakable. Alvin is the unnamed 'someone' who was supposed to be watching Rose's kids. He let his grandson get burned. He caused his daughter's children to be taken away by the state. After he manages to stop his tractor, he sits panting and shaking in terror, staring at nothing, the burning house clearly framed in the background. He is trembling not just in reaction to his near-accident, but in an abreaction to that original trauma — another time when Alvin Straight lost control and events took on their own scary, unstoppable momentum."
It's a really long article, so I won't list all its points here, but it basically argues that everything on the journey, from the deer woman to the WWII vet, comes back to Alvin's role in the fire.
So, what do you think? Is this reading things into the story that just aren't there? Or is it a plausible reading?
7 comments:
That sounds very plausible, but I certainly didn't pick up on it on first viewing.
Wow -- that is really interesting and adds a different subtext to the entire film. I think that's plausible. When he told the story over the campfire, no, I didn't have a sense that Straight was responsible. But the near-calamity he had on the hill could have been told without the fire scene, and that strengthens that scenario, as you said.
Here's another thought: What if it were Straight's brother who was watching the children, and his role was the source of their falling-out?
Also possibly relevant is Lynch's use of fire as a motif in many of his projects. The obvious is in "Twin Peaks" ... "fire, walk with me." There was fire imagery in "Wild at Heart," "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway," too. Can't remember whether it was used in "Mulholland Drive."
That's an intriguing explanation.
One thing that really struck me about Alvin, though, is his essential honesty and a sense that the time for bullshitting ourselves about the past and everything else is over. He has finally admitted killing his fellow soldier. It's like he wants to get everything straight and square in his mind and heart. No more secrets. No more shame. No more self-justification. What happened, happened. It's OK to be a human being and to have flaws. So I'm not sure why he wouldn't come clean about his possible involvement in the fire.
And he was telling the girl the story to make her feel better, to make her feel like she had a human connection in the world, someone who understands her flaws and weaknesses and pain, so why wouldn't he have just told her the truth if he were responsible? It would have been a lesson for her that she was not alone, that others have done and endured much worse.
Part of the guy's argument in the article, though, is that although Alvin seems like a real straight shooter, he's actually not. One example he gives is Alvin's drinking. Alvin tells the WWII vet that when he came back from the war, a preacher helped him to stop drinking. He implies that it was fairly soon after the war. But when he's talking about his fight with Lyle, he says that liquor played a big part. And the fight was only 10 years ago. So when exactly was it that he gave up drinking? He sounds like he's laying it all out there, but he's actually holding back some details.
I'm not saying I support this argument, by the way, but I find it interesting.
I find it interesting, too, and I wouldn't put it past David Lynch to introduce that complication to the mix.
Part of what was so intriguing about "Mulholland Drive" for me (besides the hot lesbian sex ... hehe) was how you never quite knew what to think of the lead character (Naomi Watts). Who was she, really? Was she basically an innocent victim of circumstances or was she deeply flawed, or both?
And I would think introducing this dark subtext in a DISNEY movie would be especially edifying for Lynch.
Post a Comment