 |
 |
Catalin: To my knowledge there has been no release of the famed FWWM DVD complete with deleted scenes. Apparently they're still discussing the possibility of such a release, but no word yet as to whether or not it will actually happen. More info here: http://www.dugpa.com/ As for Dan's question about whether or not Lynch's work is philosophically interesting: I must answer an unequivocal yes. My main research interest is in film sound theory, particularly the debates surrounding the notions of "original" and "copy" that emerge from the discourses of representation. For an excellent run-down on these discourses as they relate to film sound theory, see James Lastra's "sound theory" chapter in his book "Sound Technology and the American Cinema." And for a more general discussion of issues in sound fidelity outside of film studies, see Jonathan Sterne's chapter "The Social Genesis of Sound Fidelity" in his book "The Audible Past." The issues that are raised in these corners of sound theory are absolutely front and center in the work of David Lynch. Take something as basic as the "is it live or is it Memorex" notion that sound reproduction technology can re-create an "original" sound event so well that the human ear can't tell the difference between the two. Now think about the basic book-end structure of Lost Highway: in the context of the film's diegesis, we hear two versions of the phrase "Dick Laurent is Dead." The first version is mediated through the technology of the intercom while the second is heard directly from Fred Madison's lips. The question that frames the film is this: is it the same voice in both versions? Lynch gives us over two full hours between the two readings which is far more than enough time for the fidelity of our sonic memories to be tested. And as these two hours pass Lynch fills the film with scenarios that explore the concept of fidelity. For example, Fred suggests that his own memory does not remain faithful to reality when he says that he likes to remember things his own way, "not necessarily the way they happened." He says this to explain why he hates video cameras, inferring that the technological representation of reality adheres more faithfully to real events than his own experience can allow. It is significant that Fred makes this statement while seemingly in the midst of suspecting that his wife is being unfaithful to their marriage vows. Here he draws a connection between the way we think about fidelity in marital terms and the way we think about it when discussing representation. As we ponder these issues, our minds slowly let go of the first voice we heard and by the end of the film we honestly question whether or not Fred Madison's reading could be the same as the one that came through the intercom. Is the mediated version the same as the unmediated? Is the copy faithful to the original? To answer these questions we must first discover what we mean when we use the words "faithful," "copy," and "original" in the first place. These are, at heart, philosophical questions with as many answers as you can probably imagine. Ultimately it is for this reason that Lastra suggests we stop talking about sound "reproduction" and start talking about sound "representation." With this substitution in terms we can let go of any lingering expectation for sound technology to re-create that which it records and thus move away from the problems that bog us down when thinking about sound technology and its relationship to the world. But I don't think Lynch is going to take Lastra's advice any time soon. And that doesn't bother me one bit. Randolph. * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **