So...Rita isn't Rita, she's Camilla. And Blonde Camilla is someone else. And Betty is actually a dead woman (Diane) who was in love with Rita, but ordered a hit on her because she was shtupping the director. And the crazy old lady from down the hall was the same person as the swamp-monster thing behind the restaurant who owned the blue box of doom. So...wait, what? Does this make any sense at all? Like, even a little?
So, that's basically all I got out of the movie. Well, that and "BOOBIES!" which was pretty awesome in and of itself.
The article only cleared up one or two things: Betty/Diane and Rita/Camilla were the same person, and not just played by the same actors. And that's about it. Oh yeah, and the blue box is some interdimensional portal thing that brings Betty and Rita into the world of Diane and Camilla. Beyond that, I was so confused that I thought my head might just explode.
So is the Betty and Rita storyline the real one? Or is it the Diane & Camilla storyline? Are Betty/Rita and Diane/Camilla really the same person? Are they the main characters, or is Hollywood itself the main character? Why did we see Betty practically humping the creepy old dude if nothing else was going to come of it? Why did Rita don that god-awful blonde wig? Did they disappear into nothingness because of the box? Was there a box? Was there a key? WTF is going on here?!?!?!
There is clearly some commentary about Hollywood and the practices therein. The mob guy forces director man to hire Camilla...who may or may not actually be Camilla...who turns into Camilla...who ends up possibly engaged to the director...yet still makes out with chicks...in front of her old girlfriend...who clearly still loves her................ Yeah, totally making me rethink my major. Thanks.
Wharrrgarbl.
Gods, even this disjointed brain-vomit makes more sense than that movie. I truly had no idea what was going on. I was greatly enjoying the mystery of trying to figure out who Rita really was, and then the characters miraculously switch places. At least the article made me notice that Diane was paled and Camilla was in extremely vivid color. I probably wouldn't have made that observation myself. But yeah, I...I don't...she went.
A for effort! I think you're trying to find REASONS for all the crap that happened in this movie and that's why your brain is hurting so much! I think it's not a matter of trying to understand what the heck was going on, but appreciating the images as they happened. That's the best we can hope for =P
ReplyDeleteAaaaand I think the Rita/Betty and Camilla/Diane storylines are equally valid, depending on whether or not you trust Betty/Diane's narration. Do you think she was psychotic?
Gotta agree with Pihl o'er there. Brings to mind, I believe, when Prof McRae mentioned about Lynch not liking people trying to figure his movies out. It's too hard to come up with one definite answer to the movie. But I can't disagree with attempting to figure it out either since that's what we're trained to do. I suppose it's like looking at an abstract painting. At first glance from across the room, it looks insignificant, a speck on a white wall. You get closer, 5 feet away or so, and you're faced with a beautiful work of art. But you need more, you inch closer, close enough to kiss it, and all you see is paint strokes on canvas. I'd say this film challenges our concepts of distance and art.
ReplyDeleteI think Eric's comment is really interesting, especially given that Lynch started his career as a painter, and switched to film somewhere in the middle of art school. I also like it because it reframes the question from 'what does this mean?' to 'what does it look like, and how does it play with our perspective?' Like much of what we've watched this semester, trying to figure it out literally is just an exercise in head pain. But watching what a film does, and how it does that, can be interesting and make for a happy head.
ReplyDelete