u/Dazzling-Ad1894

According to most critics, "Mulholland Drive" is one of the greatest films of the 21st century. It has had this reputation for quite a long time (I mean, it's from 2001 and certain sequences present in the film date back even further) - some people even consider it to be Lynch's masterpiece. Undoubtedly, it's an impressive piece of filmmaking.

Compare this, however, to the reception "Lost Highway" garnered just a few years prior. There were a few positive voices, sure, like any Lynch film, but the majority of critics considered the film to be an absolute dud - incomprehensible, overly cynical, and even pretentious. Audiences generally responded in a similar fashion.

Viewing these films, anyone can clearly see both LH and MD share similar narrative and cinematic conceits. I cannot wrap my head around despising one and lauding the other, but this appears to be what has happened. Imagine if MD had been released first, and LH just a few years later - would people then consider LH to be the "greatest film of the 21st century"?

According to most critics, "Mulholland Drive" is one of the greatest films of the 21st century. It has had this reputation for quite a long time (I mean, it's from 2001 and certain sequences present in the film date back even further) - some people even consider it to be Lynch's masterpiece. Undoubtedly, it's an impressive piece of filmmaking.

Compare this, however, to the reception "Lost Highway" garnered just a few years prior. There were a few positive voices, sure, like any Lynch film, but the majority of critics considered the film to be an absolute dud - incomprehensible, overly cynical, and even pretentious. Audiences generally responded in a similar fashion.

Viewing these films, anyone can clearly see both LH and MD share similar narrative and cinematic conceits. I cannot wrap my head around despising one and lauding the other, but this appears to be what has happened. Imagine if MD had been released first, and LH just a few years later - would people then consider LH to be the "greatest film of the 21st century"?

There are quite a few contenders, but I think the honor goes to the scene in EWS where Bill is exposed before the crowd of onlookers at the mansion. It’s positively nightmarish.

While reading a recent biography of Kubrick, I was struck by an amazing fact. Prior to making “The Killing”, Kubrick was a struggling filmmaker, whose few films were poorly received and struggled with audiences. If not for meeting Harris, his partner from “The Killing” to “Lolita”, it is quite possible his career would never have taken off so quickly. If so, do you think that Kubrick still would have ended up an esteemed director, or do you think he would have ended up a quintessential “starving artist” - a forgotten photojournalist with a film career only mentioned briefly in academic books?

This could include rare outtakes, studio jams, and unreleased material. Something like "Carnival of Light" wouldn't count, IMO, because that is the most famous unreleased Beatles recording.

My guess would be something like "Fuck a Duck".

Of course, after 1970, John was dismissive of much of his work with The Beatles. To me, however, the absolute nadir of this misguided criticism was insinuating that Paul "subconsciously sabotaged" some of his most popular and acclaimed work, including "Strawberry Fields Forever".

In your opinion, what's the most frustrating opinion John held during this time period? (Also, can I get Paul McCartney to "sabotage" some of my work?!)

This is not my contention at all - the critic Mark Kermode recently released a dual-parter on the film, slating it of course, and saying basically that the film was “devoid of humor” amongst other critiques.

Did me and Mark see entirely different films? Film appreciation is a subjective medium, surely, but one couldn’t look at the costume shop scene, for example, and make such a broad statement. It has many blackly comedic elements, like all of Kubrick’s films. Do you agree with Mark at all, and if so, why?

Yes, it doesn't remotely belong on a Beatles album.

But, as a solitary work, it's rather impressive. Just think: it's created exclusively out of 8-track tape loops on 60 year-old equipment. Musically, too, it does succeed in evoking a haunting melody and otherworldly images. It also sounds FAR better than most other works in the tradition of musique-concrete (Stockhausen, anyone?).

So, yes, in my opinion, "Revolution 9" is worthwhile and Lennon's best excursion into the avant-garde. You simply need to consider it as a work completely separate from The Beatles.

Hi everyone,

I'm 26, and I took a whole series of neuropsychological tests after a job experience ended particularly disastrously.

The term 'wordcel' is banded about often here, sometimes without justification, but - quite literally - verbal comprehension is the only area I perform highly in, to the extent that mostly EVERYTHING else - from grooved pegboard to backwards digit span ranks from low average to impaired. A few areas - like judgment of line orientation and arithmetic - are average, but that's about it.

Why would someone possess such a lopsided profile? Apparently, my clinical history rules out ADHD - but my instinct suggests that I have some kind of attentional disorder. Help a wordcel out!