# Lost Highway (1997)



## mac1 (Nov 2, 2003)

Just watched this fabulous film, thought I'd start a thread to discuss the symbolism in it. (Assuming anyones seen it) what do think the film was about?


----------



## mac1 (Nov 2, 2003)

OK then I'll things off.

Firstly, I think that practically the whole film takes place in the main character Fred's mind. The only two parts I think are not in his mind are:-

The scene is which is being interviewed at the Police station
The scene where he gets put in prison
The cabin (the one burning in reverse): I think this is symbolic of Fred's mind or pysche.

Fire: I think this represents rage, just before Fred kills his wife we see fire, and at various other times of rage too. I think the cabin burning backwards represents Fred pulling all his rage back inside himself.

The freaky guy with the strange smile: I think this guy is an personification of Fred'd emotions as a whole. After Fred pulls his fear back inside himself, this unleashes his emotions, hence the killing of his wife.

I have many other theories, what do you guys think though?


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 3, 2003)

I'm still trying to work out Mulholland Drive but this one sounds intertesting. I'll have to track it down.


----------



## dwndrgn (Nov 3, 2003)

I haven't seen it so unfortunately I can't discuss the symolism.  I really like doing that - maybe I'll start another thread on this with a movie I've seen so I can join in (I'm so egocentric!).


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 31, 2004)

I've finally got round to seeing this film and thought this thread desereved resurrecting.

Here's my thoughts: A well made film with some nice techniques. Good sound use, good picture and Badalmenti does it again with the music - superb.

As for the plot: I agree with a lot of what Bigmac says. Also (and this is just a first impression) I got the feeling that not only was there psychosis but slips between reality - that it didn't all just happen in his head. It's as if two threads of life got tangled up and shot off in different directions. The scarey guy was (too me) like a spark jumping between electrodes - as if violence can jump between us. 

Don't know if that makes any sense (it doesn't to me  )


----------



## mac1 (Jan 31, 2004)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> Don't know if that makes any sense (it doesn't to me  )


Much like the film! LOL!


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 1, 2004)

There are a lot of comments about this film on the Internet Movie Database which may help understanding the film. http://www.imdb.com

The most succinct POV I saw was this: Husband discovers wife cheating. Husband kills lover. Husband kills wife. Husband sentenced. Husband fantasises about different life. Twist - husband _is_ lover (violent side).

Also, I wondered about the two characters played by Arquette (first in black, then in white)?? 

Also, many postings of extremely polarised views with much ranting, raving and gnashing of teeth - highly amusing stuff


----------



## mac1 (Feb 1, 2004)

I got a slightly different angle. Its been months since I watched it now, but I think I have a fairly good recollection of its events, if I get a few details wrong though you'll have to excuse me. Basically, like I said before I saw the film as all happening in his head. I believe that very little emphasis was placed on verisimilitude in the film, and much more on iconic symbolism. I saw the film as basically happening on two levels. As well as everything in it having traditional meaning, I think Lynch had other meanings for everything in it. Even verisimilitude itself was symbolised in the film in the form of the video cassete tape, this I believe was representative of that part of his subconcious that reminds him of what he has done, the truth about his wifes murder if you will. Its been some time since I actually watched it, but I remember a line near the start about him hating cameras, and him going on to say that he liked to remember things his own way, I believe that this was the POV from which the film was directed, ie. you are seening on screen the deluded memories of a pyschopath, hence it not relying on continuity or realism.

As for the two characters played by Arquette, I believe they are the same person, not sisters, hence the photo at the end only showing her once. While the film itself never actually stated that his wife was cheating, I think it was fairly obvious that this is what Fred believed, and that his wife in the film (with the black hair) was killed by him. The blond sister on the other hand, was I think simply a symbolic representation of his wife as his desire, if that makes sense. I think she represented his desire to kill his wife. The part of the film where she tempts him to kill the other guy (Andy I believe his name was?!?) mirrors the temptation to kill her.

Ultimately, the films most prominant theme is denial. The climax of this, is when Fred becomes Peter and starts to live an alternative life in his head. Even here, he cannot escape the events of his life as Fred, hence Arquette coming back into the film as another charachter, he is after all obsessed with her. This alternative life is very much the ideal American Hollywood life, but Fred's true self slowly seeps back, returning him to the way he was previously. In the alternative reality he is in control, and this is of primary importance. The roles are infact reversed, he is now cheating on Arquettes character with a third party. When things in Peters life remind him of Fred's life he begins to suffer from headaches, and Lynch uses a series of shock-cuts and fast hard cuts to blue light to show Fred trying to regain control when he is living as Peter.

That is most of what I remember from the film, I think I'll watch it again on a day off next week and see if I can make any more out from it, as I finally got around to buying the Lynch boxset on DVD. Eraserhead confused me even more than Mullholland Drive and Lost Highway I think.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 1, 2004)

I agree with much of what you say - particularly the two Arquette characters being the same. The theme of denial is a nice piece to the jigsaw but I just feel there's more to it than that (then again, maybe I can't see the wood for the trees). 

On the theme of cameras, I wondered if there was an element of deliberate intrusion - how can I put this - that we live with cameras everday (CCTV, Reality TV etc) and that both the hatred Fred shows for the camera and the films being projected at Andy's were almost like a  signature - like Lynch saying 'you think you're alone, you think you've got privacy - but none of us really have that anymore'.


Love him or loathe him, nobody can argue with the fact that Lynch certainly makes you think.

And I think I need an aspirin


----------



## mac1 (Feb 1, 2004)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> On the theme of cameras, I wondered if there was an element of deliberate intrusion - how can I put this - that we live with cameras everday (CCTV, Reality TV etc) and that both the hatred Fred shows for the camera and the films being projected at Andy's were almost like a signature - like Lynch saying 'you think you're alone, you think you've got privacy - but none of us really have that anymore'.


You know, I think you maybe right about that, its not something I'd really thought about, and it certainly seems to be a topic Lynch attacks. Have you seen "Rabbits" for example. In case you havent, it was Lynch's recent series that was basically a dig at reality television. The whole thing lasts 50 minutes and the whole thing (bar about 2 seconds in one episode) take place in one room with a single stationary camera in the room of a rundown old house. It basically shows 3 rabbits going about thier daily business performing human chores and past-times such as ironing and watching TV and nothing really happens for most of it. As well as having the ironic message "God you bloody idiots wil watch anything", again the message is "you think you're alone, you think you've got privacy - but none of us really have that anymore". Yep, I think your absolutely right about that.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 1, 2004)

I've never heard of Rabbits but I'll certainly look out for it. It sounds typically Lynchian


----------



## mac1 (Feb 1, 2004)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> I've never heard of Rabbits but I'll certainly look out for it. It sounds typically Lynchian


I believe its only actually available to download on the net. Never been officially released to my knowledge, it no surprise you've not heard of it. I went on a huge David Lynch fest recently and found it then.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0347840/

Certainly worth getting if your a Lynch fan like myself.


----------



## mac1 (Feb 2, 2004)

I guess you've probably haven't seen his latest web-only production "Darkened Room" either then. If you happen to watch it and figure out anything whatsoever about the plot then please tell me. Same goes to everyone else, I am not usually completely stumped by a film, but Darkened Room did exactly that, I dont even know where to begin with it.


----------



## mac1 (Feb 4, 2004)

It was actually on Channel 4 on monday night, I hope you guys managed to see it.


----------



## silvercloak (Feb 21, 2004)

I would really like to see this movie. It also had a great soundtrack, especially : The Perfect Drug by Nine Inch Nails.


----------



## mac1 (Feb 21, 2004)

A cool Marilyn Manson cover of the jazz classic "I Put A Spell On You" aswell. Though I prefered Jools Holland, David Gilmore and Mica Paris's version of it.


----------



## silvercloak (Feb 21, 2004)

Ya I like that song performed by MM also.


----------

