Tag Archives: Mulholland Drive

Love in Film

Below are some films we think really capture the nature of love that encompasses both the good and bad aspects of life.


Patrick Fischler Mulholland Drive

Applying a generic genre to a film is rendered both redundant and unnecessary when entering a world where dreams become the story of our innermost desires. And David Lynch’s ferociously intense vision fuels the fundamental element that makes this magnificent masterpiece work so wonderfully; love. Love here shows all its faces: this is no syrupy rom-com territory. Here are all the sides of love we don’t want to admit to: the burning jealousy, the unrequited lust, the need to possess the essence of the person we most desire. Through Naomi Watts’ conflicted actress and Laura Harring’s seductive amnesiac, Lynch captures the polarised nature of the heart that can ultimately lead to our total destruction. Yet even amidst this dark and sinister mystery (and love is the ultimate dark mystery) there is a lyrical beauty of emotions in thrall as well: sexual chemistry, shared humour and the realisation one person has found a path to your very core. The sensations love brings are as honest and true here as any film that pretends to know the romantic genre by explicitly box-ticking. In other words, Betty and Rita feel like true love; in all its facets.



Annie Hall

The perfect romantic-comedy from Woody Allen’s golden period, this has the blend of comedy, pathos and truth that has proved the litmus test for all romantic comedies since. Woody Allen and Diane Keaton may not appear the most likely couple on paper but their delightful and unique chemistry capture something very real, with their verbal sparring the crux of the film’s enduring joy. The film is absolutely hilarious from start to finish (an achievement in itself) with great gags and one-liners abundant. Allen’s Alvy Singer is caustic and narcissistic and Keaton’s Annie Hall is flighty and awkward but both characters remain immensely endearing and the film itself is very sweet in many respects. But it has a hard edge that often escapes the rom-com and, particularly in the concluding scenes, there’s a stark reminder that we don’t always end up with the person we want and even most love. This is a film about how love is subject to our own caprices, failings and errors in judgement. We all should remember to keep the shark moving.




One word can be used to sum up Derek Cianfrances 2010 drama, that word is raw. This is an examination of love from an unlikely perspective, this is the love that lingers once a relationship is about to meet an end.  Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams play the couple in love, we see them find joy, optimism and eventually misery in this unforgiving cautionary tale of how love can leave you feeling two very different emotions. Blue Valentine is not easy viewing and I can see why most would choose not to watch with a loved one. But there’s a measure of love within this that’s rare, by showing the severe emotional strain this break-up has on Gosling and Williams you also highlight just how much love these two people had invested in each other. At times you have to see the dark to appreciate just how involved you are with another person; love can make us behave in ways that’s completely alien and cold. Blue Valentine is the perfect manifestation of a love that’s clinging onto every last hope of survival.


Brief Encounter

Very similar but also very different to Blue Valentine is David Leans Brief Encounter. Not only does this film provide one of the most iconic shots in modern film history but it also has the depth to explore the repression women felt in a post war Britain. On the surface the film explores the notion of meeting the perfect stranger and wondering what could be. The subtext however is riveting, there’s passion, austerity and morality. The film builds to a finale that even though you know the relationship between Laura and Alec cannot extend to adultery you believe something good could come from this brief encounter. It might be brief but the weight of love can be felt from the first scene to the last.


Shame - Directed by Steve McQueen

You wouldn’t initially think of Steve McQueen’s Shame as a love story in any way shape or form. It’s the tale of Brandon (Michael Fassbender), a good-looking man with a decent job who has no problem meeting women. However, his life is somewhat in-complete and he’s trying to find someone with whom he can save a meaningful relationship. While in some ways this is the set up for many romantic comedies set in New York,Shame is a much darker and disturbing film. For Brandon has a secret – he is a sex addict. It’s not something that is openly discussed (the word ‘sex’ is only actually used once in the entire film) but is the guilt to which the film’s very title refers. Yet Shame does have at its heart a love story. It might appear that this will come via the relationship between Brandon and Marianne (Nicole Beharie), the women with whom Brandon actually connects on a level other than sex but subsequently she is the only woman with whom he is not able to sexually perform. The love story actually comes through his relationship with his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan). She clearly has her own psychological issues but unknowingly the two characters find and rescue one another amidst their turbulent lives. McQueen uses music as a way of drawing the audience in to their relationship which seems on the surface to be volatile and argumentative. Yet when Sissy sings ‘New York, New York’, it reduces Brandon to an emotional level, a rare glimpse of him letting his guard down and unveiling the true sadness in his life. As the film progresses, the non-diegetic  music comes into prominence. During a scene when Brandon sleeps with two prostitutes there is a pain etched on his face while Harry Escott’s high-pitched score makes a passionate sex scene a repulsive and off-putting thing to watch. This is quite brilliantly juxtaposed with the films climax in which Brandon finds Sissy in his bathroom, wrists slashed and blood everywhere. There is a different type of pain on Brandon’s face this time, one of fear that he might lose the one person that could get through to him and the soft piano music turns a horrifying situation into an almost tender scene. Brandon cradles his sister, hoping, wishing and praying that she might pull through. It’s this central love story that brings Shame through to its ending that is both happy and sad, tragic yet optimistic. Sissy and Brandon might just be ok if they can iron out their differences and stick together. After all, as Sissy says to her brother before her suicide attempt, they’re not bad people, they just come from a bad place.


Amour - Dir Micheal Haneke


Micahel Haneke paints a sad tale in many ways yet uplifting in others, in this story of an elderly man looking after his wife following a stroke. It’s a true representation of the marital vow ‘in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, till death us do part’. With little cutting and only diagetic music, the screenplay and two leads portray a simple yet poignant tale, rich in detail  and theme and profoundly moving. It’s a tale we can all relate to, some more directly than others and it is pitched at absolutely the right level. It’s a real film about love and commitment and to this end is quite uplifting when you think about it (which you will do, for a long time). A shining light of a film in a world full of appalling rom-coms that think they’re about love, when they’re actually about 2 rich people that fancy each other and get together at the end to manipulate the audience into thinking they’re feeling something about life. It’s stripped of all this nonsense and it is an absolute masterpiece.

Tagged , , , ,

Interview #14 – Mike White from The Projection Booth Podcast

Mike White - The Projection Booth PodcastOver the past decade film criticism/discussion has found new and innovative ways to embrace new media. One example of this is not in written form but audio. What started in print and then onto blogs, film discussion has moved into the world of podcast.

The good movie podcasts don’t just review film but they discuss and analyse why a film is either good/bad.  The great podcasts do more than this, they explore cinematic history and talk passionately not just about films that’re popular but also films that are (in some instances) forgotten but are worthy of discussion/attention. It’s in this category where you’ll find The Projection Booth podcast.

I’ve spent many hours listening to these guys so it’s an absolute pleasure to have them agree to do an interview with us.


For anyone unaware of The Projection Booth podcast, how would you describe your style/format?

Every week we look at a particular film and try to examine the plot, the creation, and the impact of the work. Whenever possible, we try to get supporting interviews with the people involved in the production or experts on the subject matter.  Over the years I’ve had two main co-hosts, “Mondo” Justin Bozung and Rob St. Mary.  They’ve both since left to pursue writing projects.  For the last year I’ve had a rotating group of guest co-hosts who have brought a wide variety of viewpoints and opinions to the fray, all in the name of furthering the discussion of film.

Projection Booth podcast

How long did it take for you to find a style for the podcast, particularly with regards to length and tone?

For the first few months we were beholden to an hour length as we were being re-broadcast on a terrestrial radio station out West.  However, it was after just a handful of episodes that we began to find it impossible to keep things under an hour.   It might have been the Freaked show (Episode 11) or shortly before that but we quickly adopted what Rob St. Mary called “The Fight Club Rule of Podcasts” in that “Episodes will go on for as long as they have to.”   

In regard to tone, I think things were a bit more humorous in the beginning when Mondo Justin (Justin Bozung) was my co-host.  I’ve cut out a lot of the jokes, though I will often use sound clips as punch lines or counter-voices to discussions.  The tone of the show depends a lot on the movie being discussed but the overall “Projection Booth”-ness settled into place about a year after we started doing the show.  

A couple people have said that there’s an NPR vibe to the show, which makes sense, I suppose, as I wanted to emulate shows like Studio 360 and RadioLab.

How do you go about picking the films for each podcast?

I’ve had a working list of episodes going from about three months before the first episode ever aired.  This list could last into 2021 if I didn’t add anything to it but things are constantly being introduced and shuffled around.  

Ed Neumeier, Writer of Robocop and Starship Toopers

Ed Neumeier, Writer of Robocop and Starship Toopers

On the rare occasion, an interview opportunity will land in my lap.  Otherwise, I’ll see who I can get for a particular film before really considering doing an episode about it.  And, if I do land an interview, I’ll immediately think of other films in that person’s oeuvre that I would also want to discuss for another episode.   For example, if I can talk to an Ed Neumeier about Robocop, it’s natural that I’ll want to speak to him about Starship Troopers.    

There are a few movies that have been discussed where finding even a tangential interview subject proved challenging but that’s when it’s time to get creative.  I try to balance episodes without interviews with those that have them.  I’ve gotten a little paranoid that some people only listen to the show for the interviews… for some reason I’m suddenly reminded of Playboy.

At the end of the day, I’m choosing films that I’d like to discuss, that I think need more attention, that I think are misunderstood.  I occasionally get a suggestion from a co-host and will try my best to make a show out of those.  In 2018 I’m going to try something unusual and break open the Suggestion Box we keep on the site and see what kind of episodes I can make of them.  

Your podcasts can vary in length with some reaching the five hour mark, how long (on average) does it take to produce and create the Projection Booth podcast?

The longest episode we’ve done so far was the Conan the Barbarian show which clocked in at almost eight hours. The average length of shows is closer to two or three hours.   If one were to count all the planning, the researching, the phone calls, the editing, and the final file creation a typical show might take around 200 hours to produce.  That’s on top of my working a day job and trying to have some kind of social and family life.  Fortunately, I plan ahead quite a bit.   

I think that might also be what helps make The Projection Booth what it is; my obsessive compulsive disorder. I’m not satisfied to watch a movie and talk about it.  If I can, I want to read the book on which it was based, various drafts of the screenplay, reviews, essays, and more.  When I can, I try to dig out as many pieces about a particular film as I possibly can and create a “course pack” of material to read (and share with my co-hosts) with the hope that these various pieces can help inform the discussion even if we don’t specifically speak to them.  

Your conversational approach allows for more of an analytical study of the films you discuss on the podcast, how important is the editing process to allow for this?

Fortunately, the conversations we have on the show are pretty terrific.  I use editing to help shape them but it’s the rare occasion where I have to move sections of discussion around.  I’m usually editing out the errant “ums” or some of the more tin-eared jokes I throw out.  Honestly, I think that I cut out 5% of what my co-hosts say and 15-20% of what I have to say.  So, imagine that next time you listen to a show and hear me droning on.  My poor co-hosts have to hear even more of that!  Oh, and my obnoxious, braying laughter.

I think the most fun I have during the editing process is when I pull in sound clips as quotes from the film we’re discussing or, moreover, the clips that call back to the references that we may make.

How do you think podcasting could change film criticism?

One of my goals with the show is to bring immediacy to film.  At the same time, I’m trying my best to fill in some gaps where possible.  If anything ever smells odd about the “facts” of a film’s history, I will try to find clarity, often by going straight to the horse’s mouth.  

The preponderance of apocryphal blog posts, YouTube “essays”, and podcasts that just skim the surface and never go deeper than essentially eating each other’s vomit won’t do anything or film criticism. However, there are particular critics who do dive deep and while I don’t see them changing film criticism, I see them working more in the theoretical realm where we’re going beyond simply recapping plots and pithy comments.  It’s easy to say that a film is “good” or “bad” but it’s quite another to say why.  People remember the thumbs up or down from Siskel and Ebert but they forget the discussion that lead to the thumbs.  

Sorry for jumping on my soapbox but film criticism can be as simple as saying, “Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes” or it can be something far richer.  

Your Mulholland Drive podcast is a personal favourite, how easy is it to get the likes of Laura Harring and Patrick Fischler to appear on the podcast?

I was kind of shocked that I was able to land those interviews!  I simply reached out to their representatives and they both agreed to be a part of the show.  Laura Harring really did her research on me and I’m wondering if my casual friendship with director Greydon Clark (who cast her in The Forbidden Dance, one of her early roles) had something to do with her coming on.

Laura Harring Mulholland Drive

I find that it never hurts to ask if someone will be on the show — if I can find a good contact method.  The closer I can get to the person I want to interview, that is, if I can ask them directly, I usually get a yes.  If I have to work through a publicist, I get refusals more than I get agreements.

Fortunately, that’s another area where my OCD can be a boon. I love to put on my deerstalker and tracking down addresses and contact information.

Patrick Fischler Mulholland Drive

And, by the way, I’m glad you enjoyed the Mulholland Drive episode.  I’ve had a lot of fun discussing the films of David Lynch over the last five, going on six, years and I look forward to the next one.   Perhaps one of these days I’ll get to speak to Mr. Lynch himself.

How do you compare and contrast the approach to film criticism in this verbal form compared to written?

I’m at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to visually demonstrating my points and the lack of footnotes though that’s what the obligatory “show notes” can provide.   I’m at an advantage when it comes to having multiple points-of-view on each episode and being able to build on each other’s thoughts.   I’ll admit, too, that there have been times while I’m talking about a film I’ll suddenly make a point that I’d never considered before.  Verbalizing helps me think. And being in a “safe space” among friends can lead to throwing out some off-the-wall ideas and seeing how they play.  

Obviously, I don’t think that I can go as deep as a 5,000 word essay but I have hope that some of the interviews and discussions on the show might lead to further research by those so inclined.

Do you listen to any other film podcasts?

I do!  I really admire the amount of research that comes through in the discussions of The Feminine Critique, and Daughters of Darkness. I also frequently listen to Outside the Cinema, F This Movie, Kulture Shocked, Talk Without Rhythm, The After Movie Diner, and Badasses Boobs and Bodycounts.  You might not think so, but the two shows that I refuse to miss are comic discussions of film; We Hate Movies and God Awful Movies.

Do you think podcasting can improve considering the popularity the medium has found over the past few years?

I definitely do.  For one thing, the term “podcast” is still a foreign one to a lot of people.   I still find myself explaining

NPR’s Serial

the concept and how one can gain access to podcasts.  It’s a hidden world to too many potential listeners. NPR’s Serial helped a bring awareness to the medium though I think it could use another boost.  

One of the great things about podcasting is that anyone can do it.  It always reminds me of the old days of fanzines.  Just like with fanzines, the quality of the presentation can overshadow the content of the message — good or bad.  That said, there’s always room for improvement when it comes to technical prowess.  I own that The Projection Booth can sound better.   I’m constantly re-investing in the show though, and endeavor to do that in the future.

Do you have any tips/advice for anyone looking to start their own podcast?

The one thing that I’ve stressed to people who have asked me the same question is that podcasting doesn’t have to be an expensive proposition.  The barrier to entry is such that one can start a fairly decent show for $65.  If you don’t mind, allow me to pimp a book I wrote on that very subject, Podcasting on a Budget:


Additionally, I’d stress the before the microphone even goes on to decide what kind of show you’re going to have: the tone, the ground rules, and what will set you apart from other shows that might live in the same space.

You can find The Projection Booth via the links below.

Website:  http://www.projection-booth.com

Twitter:  @proboothcast

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/theprojectionbooth


Tagged , , , , ,