---

Kan nogen komme med /henvise til en analyse af denne film ???
efter at have set den igen fornylig er jeg totalt forvirret - er der en rød
tråd ?

Esben

---

Hej Esben

Fandt denne meget gode forklaring, den er desvære på engelsk men ellers
meget godt forklaret:

Reposted from the old discussion board:

December 14, 1999:

So here's my theory. It's not the only and supreme theory. It's just my
theory. I've seen the movie 4 times. I've read the screenplay once. Based on
all that, I've constructed a theory that is still not bulletproof, but I
think it might be as close as one can get to the real truth.

The first thing a viewer must understand about the movie is that the plot is
not linear. I believe the whole "Dick Laurent is dead" loop trick is done
just to point this out (and of course, to confuse everyone a bit more). The
second thing you must understand is that the movie is not told from an
all-knowing narrator's point of view. The POV from which the story is told
is Fred's and his reality in the movie becomes our reality.

The most interesting point in the movie is the one when the cops first visit
the Madisons house and they talk to Fred. When they ask Fred if he has any
camcorders in his house, he replies that he doesn't because "he likes to
remember things his own way". A key point. Remember: Fred's POV.

Now I will present my version of the plot. I will explain everything
cronologically as it really happened. You will be able to figure out how
most of the events were described in the movie, but that's a whole different
story which may require a whole new post.

So here we go...

Fred and Renee Madison have been married only for a short time. Fred is a
calm, quiet, reserved kind of guy. Renee is a woman who has a wild past, but
who has for some, to us unknown, reason decided to marry a guy like Fred. So
maybe their marriage was happy in the beginning, but after a while Fred
started getting more and more jealous and uneasy about Renee's past (of
which he knows little about, but has some serious doubts).

We enter the story at a point when their marriage is not really doing that
great. Fred spends a lot of time with his music, Renee shows little or no
interest at all for him or his activities. Their sex life sucks - Fred is
not exactly the best lover, and Renee is not exactly the happy and willing
wife either. Renee hangs around really freaky characters, probably
gangsters, drug dealers, porn producers. This really makes Fred wonder about
Renee's past. Fred starts to get increasingly jealous of his wife. He thinks
she is sleeping with another guy, possibly one of her strange friends
(remember when he sees her leave the jazz bar with Andy). It seems to him
like he has lost his wife - she was once his, but he can now feel her slowly
slip away.

One night Fred decides to follow his wife. He follows her to a motel, a
place called "Lost Highway Hotel". He follows her to a room #26 so he
decides to take the room opposite to #26, room #25. (Mind that I'm now just
making up these room numbers, they are mentioned twice in the movie). In
room #26 Renee meets with a man that Fred has seen before at one of the
parties - his name is Dick Laurent, he's a notorius mafioso. After they have
sex, Renee leaves the hotel. Fred waits until she's gone, breaks into
Laurent's room, drags him out of the hotel, puts him in the trunk of his car
and drives off to the desert. There he kills Dick Laurent with his gun and
leaves his body in the desert.

A few days pass since the murder. Laurent's body is not found yet, because,
of course, it's somewhere in the middle of the damn desert. Fred and Renee
go to one of her friend's parties and Fred engages in a conversation with
Andy. After Andy mentions Laurent's, Fred accidentally blurs out "Isn't
Laurent dead?", to which Andy replies "How do you know he's dead?", and
then, as if realizing that Laurent is gone and he really could be dead, he
asks Fred "Who told you he was dead?!?"

Fred and Rene leave the party and go home. That very same night (or it might
be the next night), Fred goes back to Andy's house and kills Andy by
throwing him at the edge of a glass table. Why? Perhaps to cover up for his
stupid give away earlier that night, or perhaps because of jealousy (he
thinks Renee is sleeping with Andy too).

Fred realizes that the only way out of the whole mess now is to go all the
way and eliminate the root of his problems, the only woman he could never
have - his wife Renee. So he goes back home and brutally murders his wife
(the screenplay mentions that her body was chopped up into pieces).

The next morning, the police arrive at Andy's house and find Fred's
fingerprints all over the place (don't be confused by the fact that the cops
say how "the place is full of Pete's fingerprints"). The movie actually
begins with the following scece: we find Fred sitting in his apartment,
after he just murdered his wife, when he sees the cops coming. He gets into
his car and starts running away from the cops. These are the last scenes in
the movie, but this is not the end of the story. We're actually right around
the middle. :)

Fred is caught. He is put on trial (we never really find out what he's
guilty of, right? He might be in jail for a triple murder!) and sentenced to
death in the electric chair. His is put on death row. As he's waiting for
his death penalty, he increasingly becomes aware of how serious his crime is
and he begins feeling remorse and guilt for killing his wife. The feeling of
guilt starts to haunt him. His conscience really starts giving him a hard
time, he cannot escape the fact that he has murdered his wife. He even
starts getting headaches.

And now, the most important point of my theory, ladies and gentlemen! Read
carefully.

Fred does not disappear from the jail. He doesn't even get sick and die in
his jail cell.

Fred Madison dies in the electric chair. We are not told how much time he
spent on death row, but it's not impossible that he spent several months or
years there. And the moment of his execution finally came.

And as he's sitting in the electric chair and thousands of volts are
beggining to fry his body, Fred decides to escape to the only place he has
left - his own imagination.

And so he transforms into a young man called Pete Dayton. Pete Dayton is
everything Fred Madison isn't. He's young, good looking, very macho, has a
sexy young girlfriend, excellent in bed, works at a car shop (how much more
macho can a man get?) and even has important connections with some very
influential people. Pete and Fred have absolutely nothing in common.

We follow Pete's life for a while. A perfectly normal life, nice parents,
nice job, nice girlfriend. Everything that Fred would want, right? The
problem is that Fred's guilty conscience fools him and plays a trick on him.
Fred cannot escape his guilt even in his own fantasies, so slowly, but
surely, his real life starts taking over.

First we see the character of Dick Laurent come into his fantasy under the
name of Mr. Eddy. There's still nothing wrong there, in fact, Pete seems
very proud to know Mr. Eddy. But than SHE comes in. Renee comes back as
Alice. She is Fred/Pete's object of desire. She is his greatest temptation,
but at the same time, she is his own destruction. Perfectly open and
promiscuous, but at the same time completely unatainable.

As Pete gets more seriously involved with Alice, his real life, his
conscience really starts to take over. Suddenly his girlfriend and parents
start reffering to some "terrible thing" that happened the night he
disapperead (this one is really debatable, but couldn't the "terrible thing"
be the murder of his wife?) and Alice starts to resemble Renee even more.
Conversations start repeating themselves ("I met this guy at a place called
Moke's... He told me about a job..."). Even Alice's past bares a striking
similarity to Renee's past (or it's at least what Fred thinks of her past).
And then, to mark the end of Pete's idilic fantasy - she introduces a guy
named Andy. Andy? Wow, even the names remain the same this time. Why?
Because for then on what we see is not fantasy anymore - it's his
recollection of events that actually took place. And although it is Pete who
goes to Andy's house and kills him, we know now that it is actually Fred's
memory of the murder. As Pete goes to the bathroom upstairs, we see the hall
from the "Lost Highway Hotel" again (first time in the movie), Renee having
sex with Dick Laurent and all that.

Pete and Alice go to the desert and as they wait for some guy to show up,
they make love. As Pete climaxes and cries out "I want you... I want you!",
Alice/Renee sends him the final message: "You will never have me." And so
Fred's fantasy finally ends and it's pure recollection from then on. The
murder of Dick Laurent is shown exactly how it happened.

And so we reach the end of the movie. As the cops chase Fred across the
desert, we see Fred's face twist into a horrific painful expression, and as
the blue lights fill the interior of the car, Fred disappears and we are
left alone on the Lost Highway. Ladies and gentlemen, Fred Madison has died
in the electric chair. What seemed to us (and him) like 60 minutes, was in
fact just a few seconds during which electricity fried Fred Madison's brain.

And that's the plot. Plain and simple, eh? :)

Well, I feel it is my duty to explain some other things that go on in the
movie. You're probably thinking, "Who the hell is that Mystery Man"? In my
humble opinion, the Mystery Man is no one other than Fred Madison. Or even
better - his conscience. Think about it. Isn't the Mystery Man around only
when Fred/Pete is around? And who kills Laurent in the desert? Yes, the
Mystery Man shoots the gun, but in whose hand is the gun after MM
disappears? These are little details, but if I'm certain about one single
thing in this movie, this is the one - Mystery Man and Fred Madison are the
same person. Everything in the movie supports this.

What about the "Dick Laurent is dead" deal? Well, it might be there just to
confuse everyone. I see no reason for this being in the story, and to tell
you the truth, I don't see any way of rationally explaining this. If you
payed close attention to the movie, you would've also noticed that the
voices at the begining and the end of the movie are different. First time we
hear MM, and second time it's Fred. I guess this goes to support the theory
about MM. This might've been put in the movie just to point out the fact
that the story is not linear.

I don't think I've left out anything else. The burning house is purely
symbolic and it represents some sort of "explosion of emotion" or something
like that. The Mystery Man inside the house says it all.

Aha. I did leave out one thing. The only thing that doesn't fit into my
theory, or at least I haven't figured out a way how to do it yet. The video
tapes. The damn video tapes. How should we explain this? I don't have a
clue. They are not filmed by Fred, because he's asleep in all of them and in
the last one he can be seen murdering his wife. Why would he film evidence
of his own crime if he's going to run away from the cops only hours later?
Seriously, I don't have a clue who filmed those tapes. Could it be possible
that the tapes don't really exist? Perhaps they are also a reminder that
things are not what they seem to be?

Well, that's my Theory of Lost Highway. Thank you for reading.


"In the East... the far East... When a person is sentenced to death...
they're sent to a place where they can't escape... never knowing when an
executioner will step up from behind them and fire a bullet into the back of
their head..."



"Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd87ed2$0$27317$ba624c82@nntp04.dk.telia.net...
> Kan nogen komme med /henvise til en analyse af denne film ???
> efter at have set den igen fornylig er jeg totalt forvirret - er der en
rød
> tråd ?
>
> Esben
>
>

---

takker mange gange - spændende læsning som kastede en del lys over nogen af
tingene,
eller ihvertfald satte nogen af de løse ender sammen.
Jeg må lige se den igen og derefter finde ud hvad jeg mener holder i den
analyse.

Tak Igen
Esben



> Fandt denne meget gode forklaring, den er desvære på engelsk men ellers
> meget godt forklaret:
>
> Reposted from the old discussion board:
>
> December 14, 1999:
>
> So here's my theory. It's not the only and supreme theory. It's just my
> theory. I've seen the movie 4 times. I've read the screenplay once. Based
on
> all that, I've constructed a theory that is still not bulletproof, but I
> think it might be as close as one can get to the real truth.
>
> The first thing a viewer must understand about the movie is that the plot
is
> not linear. I believe the whole "Dick Laurent is dead" loop trick is done
> just to point this out (and of course, to confuse everyone a bit more).
The
> second thing you must understand is that the movie is not told from an
> all-knowing narrator's point of view. The POV from which the story is told
> is Fred's and his reality in the movie becomes our reality.
>
> The most interesting point in the movie is the one when the cops first
visit
> the Madisons house and they talk to Fred. When they ask Fred if he has any
> camcorders in his house, he replies that he doesn't because "he likes to
> remember things his own way". A key point. Remember: Fred's POV.
>
> Now I will present my version of the plot. I will explain everything
> cronologically as it really happened. You will be able to figure out how
> most of the events were described in the movie, but that's a whole
different
> story which may require a whole new post.
>
> So here we go...
>
> Fred and Renee Madison have been married only for a short time. Fred is a
> calm, quiet, reserved kind of guy. Renee is a woman who has a wild past,
but
> who has for some, to us unknown, reason decided to marry a guy like Fred.
So
> maybe their marriage was happy in the beginning, but after a while Fred
> started getting more and more jealous and uneasy about Renee's past (of
> which he knows little about, but has some serious doubts).
>
> We enter the story at a point when their marriage is not really doing that
> great. Fred spends a lot of time with his music, Renee shows little or no
> interest at all for him or his activities. Their sex life sucks - Fred is
> not exactly the best lover, and Renee is not exactly the happy and willing
> wife either. Renee hangs around really freaky characters, probably
> gangsters, drug dealers, porn producers. This really makes Fred wonder
about
> Renee's past. Fred starts to get increasingly jealous of his wife. He
thinks
> she is sleeping with another guy, possibly one of her strange friends
> (remember when he sees her leave the jazz bar with Andy). It seems to him
> like he has lost his wife - she was once his, but he can now feel her
slowly
> slip away.
>
> One night Fred decides to follow his wife. He follows her to a motel, a
> place called "Lost Highway Hotel". He follows her to a room #26 so he
> decides to take the room opposite to #26, room #25. (Mind that I'm now
just
> making up these room numbers, they are mentioned twice in the movie). In
> room #26 Renee meets with a man that Fred has seen before at one of the
> parties - his name is Dick Laurent, he's a notorius mafioso. After they
have
> sex, Renee leaves the hotel. Fred waits until she's gone, breaks into
> Laurent's room, drags him out of the hotel, puts him in the trunk of his
car
> and drives off to the desert. There he kills Dick Laurent with his gun and
> leaves his body in the desert.
>
> A few days pass since the murder. Laurent's body is not found yet,
because,
> of course, it's somewhere in the middle of the damn desert. Fred and Renee
> go to one of her friend's parties and Fred engages in a conversation with
> Andy. After Andy mentions Laurent's, Fred accidentally blurs out "Isn't
> Laurent dead?", to which Andy replies "How do you know he's dead?", and
> then, as if realizing that Laurent is gone and he really could be dead, he
> asks Fred "Who told you he was dead?!?"
>
> Fred and Rene leave the party and go home. That very same night (or it
might
> be the next night), Fred goes back to Andy's house and kills Andy by
> throwing him at the edge of a glass table. Why? Perhaps to cover up for
his
> stupid give away earlier that night, or perhaps because of jealousy (he
> thinks Renee is sleeping with Andy too).
>
> Fred realizes that the only way out of the whole mess now is to go all the
> way and eliminate the root of his problems, the only woman he could never
> have - his wife Renee. So he goes back home and brutally murders his wife
> (the screenplay mentions that her body was chopped up into pieces).
>
> The next morning, the police arrive at Andy's house and find Fred's
> fingerprints all over the place (don't be confused by the fact that the
cops
> say how "the place is full of Pete's fingerprints"). The movie actually
> begins with the following scece: we find Fred sitting in his apartment,
> after he just murdered his wife, when he sees the cops coming. He gets
into
> his car and starts running away from the cops. These are the last scenes
in
> the movie, but this is not the end of the story. We're actually right
around
> the middle. :)
>
> Fred is caught. He is put on trial (we never really find out what he's
> guilty of, right? He might be in jail for a triple murder!) and sentenced
to
> death in the electric chair. His is put on death row. As he's waiting for
> his death penalty, he increasingly becomes aware of how serious his crime
is
> and he begins feeling remorse and guilt for killing his wife. The feeling
of
> guilt starts to haunt him. His conscience really starts giving him a hard
> time, he cannot escape the fact that he has murdered his wife. He even
> starts getting headaches.
>
> And now, the most important point of my theory, ladies and gentlemen! Read
> carefully.
>
> Fred does not disappear from the jail. He doesn't even get sick and die in
> his jail cell.
>
> Fred Madison dies in the electric chair. We are not told how much time he
> spent on death row, but it's not impossible that he spent several months
or
> years there. And the moment of his execution finally came.
>
> And as he's sitting in the electric chair and thousands of volts are
> beggining to fry his body, Fred decides to escape to the only place he has
> left - his own imagination.
>
> And so he transforms into a young man called Pete Dayton. Pete Dayton is
> everything Fred Madison isn't. He's young, good looking, very macho, has a
> sexy young girlfriend, excellent in bed, works at a car shop (how much
more
> macho can a man get?) and even has important connections with some very
> influential people. Pete and Fred have absolutely nothing in common.
>
> We follow Pete's life for a while. A perfectly normal life, nice parents,
> nice job, nice girlfriend. Everything that Fred would want, right? The
> problem is that Fred's guilty conscience fools him and plays a trick on
him.
> Fred cannot escape his guilt even in his own fantasies, so slowly, but
> surely, his real life starts taking over.
>
> First we see the character of Dick Laurent come into his fantasy under the
> name of Mr. Eddy. There's still nothing wrong there, in fact, Pete seems
> very proud to know Mr. Eddy. But than SHE comes in. Renee comes back as
> Alice. She is Fred/Pete's object of desire. She is his greatest
temptation,
> but at the same time, she is his own destruction. Perfectly open and
> promiscuous, but at the same time completely unatainable.
>
> As Pete gets more seriously involved with Alice, his real life, his
> conscience really starts to take over. Suddenly his girlfriend and parents
> start reffering to some "terrible thing" that happened the night he
> disapperead (this one is really debatable, but couldn't the "terrible
thing"
> be the murder of his wife?) and Alice starts to resemble Renee even more.
> Conversations start repeating themselves ("I met this guy at a place
called
> Moke's... He told me about a job..."). Even Alice's past bares a striking
> similarity to Renee's past (or it's at least what Fred thinks of her
past).
> And then, to mark the end of Pete's idilic fantasy - she introduces a guy
> named Andy. Andy? Wow, even the names remain the same this time. Why?
> Because for then on what we see is not fantasy anymore - it's his
> recollection of events that actually took place. And although it is Pete
who
> goes to Andy's house and kills him, we know now that it is actually Fred's
> memory of the murder. As Pete goes to the bathroom upstairs, we see the
hall
> from the "Lost Highway Hotel" again (first time in the movie), Renee
having
> sex with Dick Laurent and all that.
>
> Pete and Alice go to the desert and as they wait for some guy to show up,
> they make love. As Pete climaxes and cries out "I want you... I want
you!",
> Alice/Renee sends him the final message: "You will never have me." And so
> Fred's fantasy finally ends and it's pure recollection from then on. The
> murder of Dick Laurent is shown exactly how it happened.
>
> And so we reach the end of the movie. As the cops chase Fred across the
> desert, we see Fred's face twist into a horrific painful expression, and
as
> the blue lights fill the interior of the car, Fred disappears and we are
> left alone on the Lost Highway. Ladies and gentlemen, Fred Madison has
died
> in the electric chair. What seemed to us (and him) like 60 minutes, was in
> fact just a few seconds during which electricity fried Fred Madison's
brain.
>
> And that's the plot. Plain and simple, eh? :)
>
> Well, I feel it is my duty to explain some other things that go on in the
> movie. You're probably thinking, "Who the hell is that Mystery Man"? In my
> humble opinion, the Mystery Man is no one other than Fred Madison. Or even
> better - his conscience. Think about it. Isn't the Mystery Man around only
> when Fred/Pete is around? And who kills Laurent in the desert? Yes, the
> Mystery Man shoots the gun, but in whose hand is the gun after MM
> disappears? These are little details, but if I'm certain about one single
> thing in this movie, this is the one - Mystery Man and Fred Madison are
the
> same person. Everything in the movie supports this.
>
> What about the "Dick Laurent is dead" deal? Well, it might be there just
to
> confuse everyone. I see no reason for this being in the story, and to tell
> you the truth, I don't see any way of rationally explaining this. If you
> payed close attention to the movie, you would've also noticed that the
> voices at the begining and the end of the movie are different. First time
we
> hear MM, and second time it's Fred. I guess this goes to support the
theory
> about MM. This might've been put in the movie just to point out the fact
> that the story is not linear.
>
> I don't think I've left out anything else. The burning house is purely
> symbolic and it represents some sort of "explosion of emotion" or
something
> like that. The Mystery Man inside the house says it all.
>
> Aha. I did leave out one thing. The only thing that doesn't fit into my
> theory, or at least I haven't figured out a way how to do it yet. The
video
> tapes. The damn video tapes. How should we explain this? I don't have a
> clue. They are not filmed by Fred, because he's asleep in all of them and
in
> the last one he can be seen murdering his wife. Why would he film evidence
> of his own crime if he's going to run away from the cops only hours later?
> Seriously, I don't have a clue who filmed those tapes. Could it be
possible
> that the tapes don't really exist? Perhaps they are also a reminder that
> things are not what they seem to be?
>
> Well, that's my Theory of Lost Highway. Thank you for reading.
>
>
> "In the East... the far East... When a person is sentenced to death...
> they're sent to a place where they can't escape... never knowing when an
> executioner will step up from behind them and fire a bullet into the back
of
> their head..."
>
>
>
> "Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3fd87ed2$0$27317$ba624c82@nntp04.dk.telia.net...
> > Kan nogen komme med /henvise til en analyse af denne film ???
> > efter at have set den igen fornylig er jeg totalt forvirret - er der en
> rød
> > tråd ?
> >
> > Esben
> >
> >
>
>

---

Lynch har selv udtalt, at denne film ikke havde nogen endelig forklaring -
at den blot var en rejse i det ubevidste eller så'n - Mangler naturligvis
kilde, men mener at det var i et interview givet til Ole Michelsen (Bogart)
i Cannes... Ikke et helt så tilfredsstillende svar, men det var hvad manden
sagde, og med den produktion han har bag sig lyder det ikke usandsynligt.
Anders
"Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd8a150$0$27348$ba624c82@nntp04.dk.telia.net...
> takker mange gange - spændende læsning som kastede en del lys over nogen
af
> tingene,
> eller ihvertfald satte nogen af de løse ender sammen.
> Jeg må lige se den igen og derefter finde ud hvad jeg mener holder i den
> analyse.
>
> Tak Igen
> Esben
>
>
>
> > Fandt denne meget gode forklaring, den er desvære på engelsk men ellers
> > meget godt forklaret:
> >
> > Reposted from the old discussion board:
> >
> > December 14, 1999:
> >
> > So here's my theory. It's not the only and supreme theory. It's just my
> > theory. I've seen the movie 4 times. I've read the screenplay once.
Based
> on
> > all that, I've constructed a theory that is still not bulletproof, but I
> > think it might be as close as one can get to the real truth.
> >
> > The first thing a viewer must understand about the movie is that the
plot
> is
> > not linear. I believe the whole "Dick Laurent is dead" loop trick is
done
> > just to point this out (and of course, to confuse everyone a bit more).
> The
> > second thing you must understand is that the movie is not told from an
> > all-knowing narrator's point of view. The POV from which the story is
told
> > is Fred's and his reality in the movie becomes our reality.
> >
> > The most interesting point in the movie is the one when the cops first
> visit
> > the Madisons house and they talk to Fred. When they ask Fred if he has
any
> > camcorders in his house, he replies that he doesn't because "he likes to
> > remember things his own way". A key point. Remember: Fred's POV.
> >
> > Now I will present my version of the plot. I will explain everything
> > cronologically as it really happened. You will be able to figure out how
> > most of the events were described in the movie, but that's a whole
> different
> > story which may require a whole new post.
> >
> > So here we go...
> >
> > Fred and Renee Madison have been married only for a short time. Fred is
a
> > calm, quiet, reserved kind of guy. Renee is a woman who has a wild past,
> but
> > who has for some, to us unknown, reason decided to marry a guy like
Fred.
> So
> > maybe their marriage was happy in the beginning, but after a while Fred
> > started getting more and more jealous and uneasy about Renee's past (of
> > which he knows little about, but has some serious doubts).
> >
> > We enter the story at a point when their marriage is not really doing
that
> > great. Fred spends a lot of time with his music, Renee shows little or
no
> > interest at all for him or his activities. Their sex life sucks - Fred
is
> > not exactly the best lover, and Renee is not exactly the happy and
willing
> > wife either. Renee hangs around really freaky characters, probably
> > gangsters, drug dealers, porn producers. This really makes Fred wonder
> about
> > Renee's past. Fred starts to get increasingly jealous of his wife. He
> thinks
> > she is sleeping with another guy, possibly one of her strange friends
> > (remember when he sees her leave the jazz bar with Andy). It seems to
him
> > like he has lost his wife - she was once his, but he can now feel her
> slowly
> > slip away.
> >
> > One night Fred decides to follow his wife. He follows her to a motel, a
> > place called "Lost Highway Hotel". He follows her to a room #26 so he
> > decides to take the room opposite to #26, room #25. (Mind that I'm now
> just
> > making up these room numbers, they are mentioned twice in the movie). In
> > room #26 Renee meets with a man that Fred has seen before at one of the
> > parties - his name is Dick Laurent, he's a notorius mafioso. After they
> have
> > sex, Renee leaves the hotel. Fred waits until she's gone, breaks into
> > Laurent's room, drags him out of the hotel, puts him in the trunk of his
> car
> > and drives off to the desert. There he kills Dick Laurent with his gun
and
> > leaves his body in the desert.
> >
> > A few days pass since the murder. Laurent's body is not found yet,
> because,
> > of course, it's somewhere in the middle of the damn desert. Fred and
Renee
> > go to one of her friend's parties and Fred engages in a conversation
with
> > Andy. After Andy mentions Laurent's, Fred accidentally blurs out "Isn't
> > Laurent dead?", to which Andy replies "How do you know he's dead?", and
> > then, as if realizing that Laurent is gone and he really could be dead,
he
> > asks Fred "Who told you he was dead?!?"
> >
> > Fred and Rene leave the party and go home. That very same night (or it
> might
> > be the next night), Fred goes back to Andy's house and kills Andy by
> > throwing him at the edge of a glass table. Why? Perhaps to cover up for
> his
> > stupid give away earlier that night, or perhaps because of jealousy (he
> > thinks Renee is sleeping with Andy too).
> >
> > Fred realizes that the only way out of the whole mess now is to go all
the
> > way and eliminate the root of his problems, the only woman he could
never
> > have - his wife Renee. So he goes back home and brutally murders his
wife
> > (the screenplay mentions that her body was chopped up into pieces).
> >
> > The next morning, the police arrive at Andy's house and find Fred's
> > fingerprints all over the place (don't be confused by the fact that the
> cops
> > say how "the place is full of Pete's fingerprints"). The movie actually
> > begins with the following scece: we find Fred sitting in his apartment,
> > after he just murdered his wife, when he sees the cops coming. He gets
> into
> > his car and starts running away from the cops. These are the last scenes
> in
> > the movie, but this is not the end of the story. We're actually right
> around
> > the middle. :)
> >
> > Fred is caught. He is put on trial (we never really find out what he's
> > guilty of, right? He might be in jail for a triple murder!) and
sentenced
> to
> > death in the electric chair. His is put on death row. As he's waiting
for
> > his death penalty, he increasingly becomes aware of how serious his
crime
> is
> > and he begins feeling remorse and guilt for killing his wife. The
feeling
> of
> > guilt starts to haunt him. His conscience really starts giving him a
hard
> > time, he cannot escape the fact that he has murdered his wife. He even
> > starts getting headaches.
> >
> > And now, the most important point of my theory, ladies and gentlemen!
Read
> > carefully.
> >
> > Fred does not disappear from the jail. He doesn't even get sick and die
in
> > his jail cell.
> >
> > Fred Madison dies in the electric chair. We are not told how much time
he
> > spent on death row, but it's not impossible that he spent several months
> or
> > years there. And the moment of his execution finally came.
> >
> > And as he's sitting in the electric chair and thousands of volts are
> > beggining to fry his body, Fred decides to escape to the only place he
has
> > left - his own imagination.
> >
> > And so he transforms into a young man called Pete Dayton. Pete Dayton is
> > everything Fred Madison isn't. He's young, good looking, very macho, has
a
> > sexy young girlfriend, excellent in bed, works at a car shop (how much
> more
> > macho can a man get?) and even has important connections with some very
> > influential people. Pete and Fred have absolutely nothing in common.
> >
> > We follow Pete's life for a while. A perfectly normal life, nice
parents,
> > nice job, nice girlfriend. Everything that Fred would want, right? The
> > problem is that Fred's guilty conscience fools him and plays a trick on
> him.
> > Fred cannot escape his guilt even in his own fantasies, so slowly, but
> > surely, his real life starts taking over.
> >
> > First we see the character of Dick Laurent come into his fantasy under
the
> > name of Mr. Eddy. There's still nothing wrong there, in fact, Pete seems
> > very proud to know Mr. Eddy. But than SHE comes in. Renee comes back as
> > Alice. She is Fred/Pete's object of desire. She is his greatest
> temptation,
> > but at the same time, she is his own destruction. Perfectly open and
> > promiscuous, but at the same time completely unatainable.
> >
> > As Pete gets more seriously involved with Alice, his real life, his
> > conscience really starts to take over. Suddenly his girlfriend and
parents
> > start reffering to some "terrible thing" that happened the night he
> > disapperead (this one is really debatable, but couldn't the "terrible
> thing"
> > be the murder of his wife?) and Alice starts to resemble Renee even
more.
> > Conversations start repeating themselves ("I met this guy at a place
> called
> > Moke's... He told me about a job..."). Even Alice's past bares a
striking
> > similarity to Renee's past (or it's at least what Fred thinks of her
> past).
> > And then, to mark the end of Pete's idilic fantasy - she introduces a
guy
> > named Andy. Andy? Wow, even the names remain the same this time. Why?
> > Because for then on what we see is not fantasy anymore - it's his
> > recollection of events that actually took place. And although it is Pete
> who
> > goes to Andy's house and kills him, we know now that it is actually
Fred's
> > memory of the murder. As Pete goes to the bathroom upstairs, we see the
> hall
> > from the "Lost Highway Hotel" again (first time in the movie), Renee
> having
> > sex with Dick Laurent and all that.
> >
> > Pete and Alice go to the desert and as they wait for some guy to show
up,
> > they make love. As Pete climaxes and cries out "I want you... I want
> you!",
> > Alice/Renee sends him the final message: "You will never have me." And
so
> > Fred's fantasy finally ends and it's pure recollection from then on. The
> > murder of Dick Laurent is shown exactly how it happened.
> >
> > And so we reach the end of the movie. As the cops chase Fred across the
> > desert, we see Fred's face twist into a horrific painful expression, and
> as
> > the blue lights fill the interior of the car, Fred disappears and we are
> > left alone on the Lost Highway. Ladies and gentlemen, Fred Madison has
> died
> > in the electric chair. What seemed to us (and him) like 60 minutes, was
in
> > fact just a few seconds during which electricity fried Fred Madison's
> brain.
> >
> > And that's the plot. Plain and simple, eh? :)
> >
> > Well, I feel it is my duty to explain some other things that go on in
the
> > movie. You're probably thinking, "Who the hell is that Mystery Man"? In
my
> > humble opinion, the Mystery Man is no one other than Fred Madison. Or
even
> > better - his conscience. Think about it. Isn't the Mystery Man around
only
> > when Fred/Pete is around? And who kills Laurent in the desert? Yes, the
> > Mystery Man shoots the gun, but in whose hand is the gun after MM
> > disappears? These are little details, but if I'm certain about one
single
> > thing in this movie, this is the one - Mystery Man and Fred Madison are
> the
> > same person. Everything in the movie supports this.
> >
> > What about the "Dick Laurent is dead" deal? Well, it might be there just
> to
> > confuse everyone. I see no reason for this being in the story, and to
tell
> > you the truth, I don't see any way of rationally explaining this. If you
> > payed close attention to the movie, you would've also noticed that the
> > voices at the begining and the end of the movie are different. First
time
> we
> > hear MM, and second time it's Fred. I guess this goes to support the
> theory
> > about MM. This might've been put in the movie just to point out the fact
> > that the story is not linear.
> >
> > I don't think I've left out anything else. The burning house is purely
> > symbolic and it represents some sort of "explosion of emotion" or
> something
> > like that. The Mystery Man inside the house says it all.
> >
> > Aha. I did leave out one thing. The only thing that doesn't fit into my
> > theory, or at least I haven't figured out a way how to do it yet. The
> video
> > tapes. The damn video tapes. How should we explain this? I don't have a
> > clue. They are not filmed by Fred, because he's asleep in all of them
and
> in
> > the last one he can be seen murdering his wife. Why would he film
evidence
> > of his own crime if he's going to run away from the cops only hours
later?
> > Seriously, I don't have a clue who filmed those tapes. Could it be
> possible
> > that the tapes don't really exist? Perhaps they are also a reminder that
> > things are not what they seem to be?
> >
> > Well, that's my Theory of Lost Highway. Thank you for reading.
> >
> >
> > "In the East... the far East... When a person is sentenced to death...
> > they're sent to a place where they can't escape... never knowing when an
> > executioner will step up from behind them and fire a bullet into the
back
> of
> > their head..."
> >
> >
> >
> > "Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:3fd87ed2$0$27317$ba624c82@nntp04.dk.telia.net...
> > > Kan nogen komme med /henvise til en analyse af denne film ???
> > > efter at have set den igen fornylig er jeg totalt forvirret - er der
en
> > rød
> > > tråd ?
> > >
> > > Esben
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

---

Anders Boegh wrote:
> Lynch har selv udtalt, at denne film ikke havde nogen endelig
> forklaring - at den blot var en rejse i det ubevidste eller så'n -
> Mangler naturligvis kilde, men mener at det var i et interview givet
> til Ole Michelsen (Bogart) i Cannes... Ikke et helt så
> tilfredsstillende svar, men det var hvad manden sagde, og med den
> produktion han har bag sig lyder det ikke usandsynligt. Anders

Han har revurderet sit standpunkt i senere interviews. Nu mener han, at
filmen har rod i mordsagen mod O.J. Simpson. Mere specifikt så skal
hovedparten af filmen ses som tankespind i et sygt sind, der forsøger at
bortforklare sin handling for sig selv. Dermed trækker den også paralleller
til Mulholland Dr.

--
Jens Thomsen | http://www.mifune.dk/
"In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister" - Goethe

---

Principielt er der jo ikke nogen film, der har en endelig forklaring.
Lynch's film indbyder endnu mere til fortolkning end så mange andre.

Mikkel

---

Tjah bum, det kommer an på om man tager udgangspunkt i instruktøren som
auteur og dermed som fikspunkt for forståelse og fortolkning - Ud fra det
princip er Deckard (Harrison Ford) i Ridley Scotts Blade Runner selv en
replikant ... men du har naturligvis ret; vi fastlægger selv hvordan vi
vælger at forstå en film og ud fra det standpunkt findes der ingen mere
eller mindre gyldige fortolkningsprincipper -- Det gør der derimod når vi
vælger at diskutere værket med andre!

"Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer" <mikkel@fabel.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:bras2f$1dcet$1@ID-185377.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Principielt er der jo ikke nogen film, der har en endelig forklaring.
> Lynch's film indbyder endnu mere til fortolkning end så mange andre.
>
> Mikkel
>
>

---

"Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brc5ib$sjo$1@sunsite.dk...
> Tjah bum, det kommer an på om man tager udgangspunkt i instruktøren som
> auteur og dermed som fikspunkt for forståelse og fortolkning - Ud fra det
> princip er Deckard (Harrison Ford) i Ridley Scotts Blade Runner selv en
> replikant ...

Det jeg mener er netop, at instruktøren principielt ikke har forret til at
fortolke sine værker. Instruktøren er ikke nødvendigvis bedre til at se,
hvad en film indeholder, end en seer. Når det gælder bøger, er der mange
eksempler på, at litteraturhistorikere og kritikere har været bedre til at
udlægge deres perspektiver end forfatterne selv.

Faktisk er det hvad Lynch også har sagt om f.eks. Twin Peaks: Alle seere som
diskuterer med i udlægningen af serien, er med til at give den mening, og
det er helt legitimt. Han skaber billeder, fotografiske og
sproglige/metaforiske, men hvordan de nu forholder sig til hinanden er ikke
afgjort af ham på forhånd.

> men du har naturligvis ret; vi fastlægger selv hvordan vi
> vælger at forstå en film og ud fra det standpunkt findes der ingen mere
> eller mindre gyldige fortolkningsprincipper -- Det gør der derimod når vi
> vælger at diskutere værket med andre!

Det er ikke en total relativisme, jeg argumenterer for. Heller ikke at man
bare kan mene hvad man vil uden at argumentere for det. Men en forklaring
bliver ikke mere "rigtig" af, hvad forfatteren til værket nu giver som
forklaring.

Mikkel

---

> Det er ikke en total relativisme, jeg argumenterer for. Heller ikke at man
> bare kan mene hvad man vil uden at argumentere for det. Men en forklaring
> bliver ikke mere "rigtig" af, hvad forfatteren til værket nu giver som
> forklaring.

Så du mener ikke på nogen måde at "forfatterens" eller, som i dette
tilfælde, instruktørens udtalelser om værket har nogen form for ophøjet
status?
For mig at se bunder den eneste rimelige og entydige fortolkning der gives i
skaberens intention I skabelsesprocessen, og i øvrigt ikke bagefter (hvor
værksskabere kan have en uheldig tendens til fuldstændig at fratage værket
dets gyldighed); en fortolkning der ikke tager udgangspunkt i
værksintentionen er svær at tilskrive nogen form for relevans og bliver
derfor om ikke ugyldig, så uinteressant. Dette gælder måske mere for filmen
end for litteraturen, da førstnævnte uundgåeligt har en mere lukket
karakter, og selv om man ikke kan benægte at et værks karakter ændres over
tid, giver det dårlig mening at man i sin fortolkning kommer frem til at
værket eksempelvis er reaktionært hvis det blev skabt for 50 år siden --
derfor må enhver værksanalyse BEGYNDE i tiden og i intentionen, for ellers
bliver værket sekundært i forhold til udlægningen, som når Hitler eller
Warming udlægger Nietzsche ...

---

"Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brcsbl$om1$1@sunsite.dk...
>
> Så du mener ikke på nogen måde at "forfatterens" eller, som i dette
> tilfælde, instruktørens udtalelser om værket har nogen form for ophøjet
> status?

Nej, bestemt ikke. Ingen udtalelser bliver mere eller mindre relevante af,
_hvem_ der kommer med dem. Det er indholdet, der er interessant.

> For mig at se bunder den eneste rimelige og entydige fortolkning der gives
i
> skaberens intention I skabelsesprocessen,

Det er simpel logik, at det må være fuldstændig ligegyldigt for udlægningen
af, hvad et værk siger, hvad forfatteren havde til _hensigt_, hvis ikke den
hensigt kommer til _udtryk_ i værket. Så er det jo bare forfatterens private
intentioner du taler om. Hvis den derimod kommer til udtryk - så kan vi jo
lige så godt nøjes med at tale om _udtrykket i værket_, som er tilgængeligt
for alle. Og så er det ikke nødvendigt at henvise til forfatterens
intentioner, vel?

Det hele kommer naturligvis an på, hvad hensigten med din analyse er. Hvis
du er mere interesseret i forfatterens psykologi end i værket er det fair
nok. Men så er det bare ikke værkanalyse, du bedriver.

Men hvad vil du så gøre med folkeviser? Bibelen? Eller alle mulige andre
værker, som ikke har en forfatter, eller ikke har én forfatter?

> og i øvrigt ikke bagefter (hvor
> værksskabere kan have en uheldig tendens til fuldstændig at fratage værket
> dets gyldighed);

Hvordan det?

> en fortolkning der ikke tager udgangspunkt i
> værksintentionen er svær at tilskrive nogen form for relevans og bliver
> derfor om ikke ugyldig, så uinteressant. Dette gælder måske mere for
filmen
> end for litteraturen, da førstnævnte uundgåeligt har en mere lukket
> karakter, og selv om man ikke kan benægte at et værks karakter ændres over
> tid, giver det dårlig mening at man i sin fortolkning kommer frem til at
> værket eksempelvis er reaktionært hvis det blev skabt for 50 år siden --
> derfor må enhver værksanalyse BEGYNDE i tiden og i intentionen, for ellers
> bliver værket sekundært i forhold til udlægningen, som når Hitler eller
> Warming udlægger Nietzsche ...

Man kan sagtens udlægge et værk under hensyntagen til dens kunsthistoriske
kontekst - men uden at komme med overflødige henvisninger til forfatterens
psykologi eller personlige oplevelser.

Når jeg ser en film, er det (normalt*) historien, værket der interesserer
mig - ikke instruktørens barndom.

Mikkel
*Undtagelsen skulle måske være Lars von Trier - hans psykologi er en film
værd i sig selv Men det er netop fordi han selv, som personlighed og
figur, har gjort sig til en historie, et værk om du vil.

---

"Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer" <mikkel@fabel.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brctio$206tj$1@ID-185377.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:brcsbl$om1$1@sunsite.dk...
> >


> Når jeg ser en film, er det (normalt*) historien, værket der interesserer
> mig - ikke instruktørens barndom.

Det samme her, men Instruktørens personlighed, barndom, fobier osv. osv
er vel ret ofte med til at vække interessen for en film - Thorsens
jesusfilm havde nok ikke været helt så hypet (måske nok i vatikanet
hvis det ikke havde været for JJ thorsens personlighed.
>
> Mikkel
> *Undtagelsen skulle måske være Lars von Trier - hans psykologi er en film
> værd i sig selv Men det er netop fordi han selv, som personlighed og
> figur, har gjort sig til en historie, et værk om du vil.


Der er sikkert mange der synes det samme om Lynch, hans person og hans film.

Vh
Esben

---

"Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fda2688$0$25801$ba624c82@nntp03.dk.telia.net...
>
> "Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer" <mikkel@fabel.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:brctio$206tj$1@ID-185377.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > *Undtagelsen skulle måske være Lars von Trier - hans psykologi er en
film
> > værd i sig selv Men det er netop fordi han selv, som personlighed og
> > figur, har gjort sig til en historie, et værk om du vil.
>
>
> Der er sikkert mange der synes det samme om Lynch, hans person og hans
film.

Interesserer du dig for Lynch's liv er det fair nok, bare du holder dig
klart, at det ikke er hans film, men hans person, du beskæftiger dig med.

---

"Mikkel Moldrup-Lakjer" <mikkel@fabel.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brctio$206tj$1@ID-185377.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:brcsbl$om1$1@sunsite.dk...
> >
> > Så du mener ikke på nogen måde at "forfatterens" eller, som i dette
> > tilfælde, instruktørens udtalelser om værket har nogen form for ophøjet
> > status?

KLIP
>
> Det er simpel logik, at det må være fuldstændig ligegyldigt for
udlægningen
> af, hvad et værk siger, hvad forfatteren havde til _hensigt_, hvis ikke
den
> hensigt kommer til _udtryk_ i værket. Så er det jo bare forfatterens
private
> intentioner du taler om. Hvis den derimod kommer til udtryk - så kan vi jo
> lige så godt nøjes med at tale om _udtrykket i værket_, som er
tilgængeligt
> for alle. Og så er det ikke nødvendigt at henvise til forfatterens
> intentioner, vel?
>

Jamen, det er jo så smukt og præcist formuleret, jeg er rørende enig med
dig! En films "mening" opstår jo først i mødet med sin tilskuer og kan efter
min mening aldrig være fastlagt på forhånd.
Det er underordnet - men måske sjovt at høre - hvad hensigten med filmen
har været, men langt mere interessant hvordan en film bliver modtaget og
opfattet.



/Lise

---

Lise wrote:

> En films "mening" opstår jo først i mødet med sin tilskuer
> og kan efter min mening aldrig være fastlagt på forhånd.
> Det er underordnet - men måske sjovt at høre - hvad hensigten med
> filmen har været, men langt mere interessant hvordan en film bliver
> modtaget og opfattet.

Nix. Det, du beskriver, er bare en receptionsanalytisk vinkel. Der findes
adskillige andre analysemetoder, inkl. mere psykobiografiske, der netop
tager afsæt i afsenderen. De er allesammen fuldt gyldige, for det handler
udelukkende om, hvilke forhold man vil analysere. Laver man fx. en
brugsorienteret, dramaturgisk tekstanalyse, så er udgangspunktet normalt
*altid* kontekst, dvs. tid og forfatter.

--
Jens Thomsen | http://www.mifune.dk/
"Cinema is imperfection. You work very hard, and every day you fail"
- Charlton Heston

---

"Jens Thomsen" <virker@ikke.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brf0rg$2k411$1@ID-210473.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Lise wrote:
>
> > En films "mening" opstår jo først i mødet med sin tilskuer
> > og kan efter min mening aldrig være fastlagt på forhånd.
> > Det er underordnet - men måske sjovt at høre - hvad hensigten med
> > filmen har været, men langt mere interessant hvordan en film bliver
> > modtaget og opfattet.
>
> Nix. Det, du beskriver, er bare en receptionsanalytisk vinkel. Der findes
> adskillige andre analysemetoder, inkl. mere psykobiografiske, der netop
> tager afsæt i afsenderen.

Det ved jeg - gav bare udtryk for rmin egen holdning

---

"Lise" <annnacondaNONONONO@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fda4c3c$0$17631$ba624c82@nntp05.dk.telia.net...
>
> Jamen, det er jo så smukt og præcist formuleret, jeg er rørende enig med
> dig!



>En films "mening" opstår jo først i mødet med sin tilskuer og kan efter
> min mening aldrig være fastlagt på forhånd.
> Det er underordnet - men måske sjovt at høre - hvad hensigten med filmen
> har været, men langt mere interessant hvordan en film bliver modtaget og
> opfattet.

Men vi bør så skelne mellem et værks _udtryk_ og så det _indtryk_ det gør på
modtageren. Ellers ender vi i den rene subjektivisme.

Mikkel

---

> Ingen udtalelser bliver mere eller mindre relevante af,
> _hvem_ der kommer med dem. Det er indholdet, der er interessant.
>
> Det er simpel logik, at det må være fuldstændig ligegyldigt for
udlægningen
> af, hvad et værk siger, hvad forfatteren havde til _hensigt_, hvis ikke
den
> hensigt kommer til _udtryk_ i værket. Så er det jo bare forfatterens
private
> intentioner du taler om. Hvis den derimod kommer til udtryk - så kan vi jo
> lige så godt nøjes med at tale om _udtrykket i værket_, som er
tilgængeligt
> for alle. Og så er det ikke nødvendigt at henvise til forfatterens
> intentioner, vel?

Her er det vigtigt at pointere forskellen mellem film som værk og film som
produkt; i sidstnævnte skal instruktøren være så godt som usynlig, og så har
du ret. Er der derimod tale om en film med kunstneriske aspirationer må du
nødvendigvis tage udgangspunkt i 'noget andet' - en værkanalyse kan blot
besvare formelle spørgsmål, såsom hvilke teknikker benyttes i hvilket
omfang; hvis du vil sige noget meningsfuldt om tematik / tolkning etc.
bliver du under ALLE omstændigheder nødt til at tage udgangspunkt i en
verden udenfor filmen: Tolkninger er ikke lige gyldige, for hvor nødig du
end vil det ender du dermed ud i relativisme af værste skuffe, og så kan
alle de omfattende filmteorier være underordnede - et rugbrød vil dermed
udgøre en lige så god målestok for filmen som noget som helst andet, og så
kan vi lige så godt opgive at dyrke filmanalyse som noget som helst andet
end en formalistisk øvelse mens vi venter på at livet slutter ... ok, nu
bliver jeg meget fabulerende, men det er svært at se hvordan du ikke ender
op i en relativistisk blindgyde.

> Men hvad vil du så gøre med folkeviser? Bibelen? Eller alle mulige andre
> værker, som ikke har en forfatter, eller ikke har én forfatter?
>
> > og i øvrigt ikke bagefter (hvor
> > værksskabere kan have en uheldig tendens til fuldstændig at fratage
værket
> > dets gyldighed);
>
> Hvordan det?

Et eksempel i litteraturen er Wittgensteins Tractatus Logicus som han senere
lagde kraftig, nogen ville sige ultimativ afstand til; mere relevant ser man
en ældre Spielberg der betragter Close Encounters of a Third Kind som
ungdommeligt overmod og umoden idealisme ... der findes masser af lignende
eksempler.

> Man kan sagtens udlægge et værk under hensyntagen til dens kunsthistoriske
> kontekst - men uden at komme med overflødige henvisninger til forfatterens
> psykologi eller personlige oplevelser.
>
> Når jeg ser en film, er det (normalt*) historien, værket der interesserer
> mig - ikke instruktørens barndom.

Jeg troede vi diskuterede udlægningen af film, og ikke den personlige
oplevelse; naturligvis er du DEN ENESTE der kan opleve filmen på din måde,
alene pga. den mentale bagage du tager med til filmen, bagage som bygger på
alt fra opdragelse og oplevelser til hvad du fik til morgenmad. Det giver
bare et meget ringe udgangspunkt af en værkdiskussion, og så kan førnævnte
rugbrød være lige så fremragende som nogen auteurteori.
Altså, vi bliver nødt til at forankre værket i verden for at kunne få has på
det, og da er det min holdning at instruktøren er det mest nærliggende at
tage udgangspunkt i for en forståelse af værkets væsen, for et udgangspunkt
taget i den resterende verden vil ofte fortælle os mere om hvad vi selv
mener OM denne verden, end hvad filmen drejer sig om - Instruktøren er det
mest nærliggende fikspunkt!

---

"Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brf1le$hms$1@sunsite.dk...
>
> en værkanalyse kan blot
> besvare formelle spørgsmål, såsom hvilke teknikker benyttes i hvilket
> omfang; hvis du vil sige noget meningsfuldt om tematik / tolkning etc.
> bliver du under ALLE omstændigheder nødt til at tage udgangspunkt i en
> verden udenfor filmen:

Her er jeg helt uenig. Filmen henviser til andre film (fortællinger), men
disse er netop en del af det intertekstuelle univers, ikke af
"virkeligheden".

> Tolkninger er ikke lige gyldige, for hvor nødig du
> end vil det ender du dermed ud i relativisme af værste skuffe, og så kan
> alle de omfattende filmteorier være underordnede - et rugbrød vil dermed
> udgøre en lige så god målestok for filmen som noget som helst andet, og så
> kan vi lige så godt opgive at dyrke filmanalyse som noget som helst andet
> end en formalistisk øvelse mens vi venter på at livet slutter ... ok, nu
> bliver jeg meget fabulerende, men det er svært at se hvordan du ikke ender
> op i en relativistisk blindgyde.

Der er ligesom tre positioner på spil her:
(1) Den absolut relativistiske: alle tolkninger er lige gyldige, eller: der
er lige så mange tolkninger som personer. (Ingen af os to mener åbenbart
dette).
(2) Den kunsthistoriske: værket skal tolkes i forhold til sin tid,
forfatterskabet osv.
(3) Den værkanalytiske: kunstværket er "autonomt" idet det skal tolkes ud
fra det indhold og de referencer til andre værker (fortællinger) som det
indeholder - og ikke ud fra hverken modtagerens private forhold (1) eller
forfatterens og samtidens historiske forhold (2). Dette synspunkt hænger
sammen med strømningen "New Criticism" og begrebet "det autonome værk".

Jeg har argumenteret ud fra (3). Du anklager mig for at være for
relativistisk, men (3) er ellers en position der oftest angribes for at være
for absolut/absolutistisk. I (1) taler man om (personlige) associationer.
På niveau (3) kan man tale om (ikke-personbundne) konnotationer.

> > Men hvad vil du så gøre med folkeviser? Bibelen? Eller alle mulige andre
> > værker, som ikke har en forfatter, eller ikke har én forfatter?

Dette spørgsmål svarede du ikke på? Kan sådanne værker så ikke analyseres?

> Altså, vi bliver nødt til at forankre værket i verden for at kunne få has
på
> det,

Nej, det er her vi er uenige. Værkanalyse går ud på at finde metaforer,
paralleller, sammenhænge _inden for_ værket eller det tekstuelle univers,
altså netop uden at gå _uden for_ i "verden". Hvis der optræder en pistol i
en roman, så er jeg ikke interesseret i en biografisk oplysning om, at
"forfatteren var som dreng meget interesseret i pistoler". Jeg er derimod
interesseret i, hvad pistolen betyder _i romanen_. Det kan man faktisk godt
tale fornuftigt om uden at være relativist: Hvornår optræder pistolen?
Hvilken rolle har den i handlingen? Osv.

> og da er det min holdning at instruktøren er det mest nærliggende at
> tage udgangspunkt i for en forståelse af værkets væsen, for et
udgangspunkt
> taget i den resterende verden vil ofte fortælle os mere om hvad vi selv
> mener OM denne verden, end hvad filmen drejer sig om - Instruktøren er det
> mest nærliggende fikspunkt!

Mener du også at det er nødvendigt for at udlægge Jeppe Aakjærs digte at
vide at han var alkoholiker?

Mikkel

---

> Filmen henviser til andre film (fortællinger), men
> disse er netop en del af det intertekstuelle univers, ikke af
> "virkeligheden".
Nåhr, den berømte intertekst ... for at kende de nøjagtige referencer bliver
du samtidig nødt til at henholde dig til hvilke af disse som er
intentionelle; man kan sagtens benytte jump-cuts uden at være bekendt med
'den ny bølge', sagtens lave et match shot uden at være bekendt med 2001 og
Kubrick, sagtens vise et neonrør uden at tænke på lyssværd. Ellers
kommenterer du blot på en filmhistorie som værket (nødvendigvis) skriver sig
ind i --- og det giver heller ikke en "autonom" værkanalyse

> Der er ligesom tre positioner på spil her:
Du behøver ikke at tiltale andre som idioter, med mindre du postulerer at
der eksisterer noget som er SOM 'tre positioner' uden at VÆRE 'tre
positioner', altså 'ligesom' - ellers er det bare et fyldord.

> (1) Den absolut relativistiske: alle tolkninger er lige gyldige, eller:
der
> er lige så mange tolkninger som personer. (Ingen af os to mener åbenbart
> dette).
Som ingen andre end socialrelativister henholder sig til.
> (2) Den kunsthistoriske: værket skal tolkes i forhold til sin tid,
> forfatterskabet osv.
> (3) Den værkanalytiske: kunstværket er "autonomt" idet det skal tolkes ud
> fra det indhold og de referencer til andre værker (fortællinger) som det
> indeholder - og ikke ud fra hverken modtagerens private forhold (1) eller
> forfatterens og samtidens historiske forhold (2). Dette synspunkt hænger
> sammen med strømningen "New Criticism" og begrebet "det autonome værk".
Hvilket lige præcis er hvor man bliver nødt til at tage fat; du postulerer
en autonomi som tillader dig at gribe fat i værket, uden at være besmittet
af egne holdninger ... Dette kræver en perfekt og rationel viden om værkets
konkrete og sande væren - og dermed har du knust ethvert problem med at gå
til værket; imponerende, taget i betragtning at alle andre har fejlet på
dette område Problemet med New Historicism er netop, at den forklædt som
objektivitet postulerer en ideologi, hvilket er hvorfor New Historicism mere
eller mindre har mistet sin magtposition efter midten af firserne.
Det er nogen vanvittig spændende videnskriterier vi taler om, men at
postulerer autonomi ligger dig ALTID åben for angreb for relativisme!

> > > Men hvad vil du så gøre med folkeviser? Bibelen? Eller alle mulige
andre
> > > værker, som ikke har en forfatter, eller ikke har én forfatter?
Beklager, glemte at forsøge en besvarelse
Hvad angår biblen ville jeg aldrig kaste mig ud i en selvstændig
værksanalyse; en sådan må nødvendigvis tage udspring i tiden og samfundene
som biblen er produkt af; ligeså finder jeg det interessant, hvordan du
ville tage fat i en autonom værksanalyse af biblen ...? Folkeviser finder
jeg teoretisk set også mere interessante som genretype, at kortlægge
varianter etc. for at finde ud af hvad de kan sige om tiden og hvad tiden
kan sige om folkeviserne.

> Nej, det er her vi er uenige. Værkanalyse går ud på at finde metaforer,
> paralleller, sammenhænge _inden for_ værket eller det tekstuelle univers,
> altså netop uden at gå _uden for_ i "verden". Hvis der optræder en pistol
i
> en roman, så er jeg ikke interesseret i en biografisk oplysning om, at
> "forfatteren var som dreng meget interesseret i pistoler". Jeg er derimod
> interesseret i, hvad pistolen betyder _i romanen_. Det kan man faktisk
godt
> tale fornuftigt om uden at være relativist: Hvornår optræder pistolen?
> Hvilken rolle har den i handlingen? Osv.
Det er den slags slutninger vi gerne skulle drage i mødet (det individuelle)
med værket; hvis vi bagefter bliver nødt til at diskutere geværet i
historien er det en god indikation af, at den var andet og mere end blot en
Ipsens berømte gevær på en væg - der er forskel på narrative plotelementer
(som får historien til at skride fremad) og metaforer, analogier, tematikker
etc. Sidstnævnte forholder sig helt eller delvist til en omkringliggende
verden udenfor fiktionen.
At en analyse er sproglig, at den er tekstuel, at den bygger på en specifik
teoretisk retning ligger allerede uden for værket; at spehle et værk i sig
selv giver ingen mening - Vi bliver nødt til at bevidstgøre hvilke elementer
vi interesserer os for og hvad de skal fortælle os -- hvilket bringer os
tilbage til, at hvis du skal forstå et ikke umiddelbart gennemskueligt værk
må vi tage udgansgpunkt i de ting som kan forklare os værkets indhold som
nærliggende nok kunne være instruktøren. At jeg forstår en historie betyder
ikke at jeg nødvendigvis forståe dens tematik, og derfor holder pistolen
ikke!

> Mener du også at det er nødvendigt for at udlægge Jeppe Aakjærs digte at
> vide at han var alkoholiker?
Det kunne tænkes at være værdifuldt, ligesom at det faktum at Nietzsche
havde syfilis kan belyse visse af hans værker ...?

Bøgh

---

"Anders Boegh" <boegh@oerneborgen.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:brfjpo$ig$1@sunsite.dk...
>
> Nåhr, den berømte intertekst ... for at kende de nøjagtige referencer
bliver
> du samtidig nødt til at henholde dig til hvilke af disse som er
> intentionelle; man kan sagtens benytte jump-cuts uden at være bekendt med
> 'den ny bølge', sagtens lave et match shot uden at være bekendt med 2001
og
> Kubrick, sagtens vise et neonrør uden at tænke på lyssværd. Ellers
> kommenterer du blot på en filmhistorie som værket (nødvendigvis) skriver
sig
> ind i

Ja - jeg kan ikke se problemet? Min pointe er netop, at det er principielt
ligegyldigt, hvilke der er intentionelle, og hvilke der er
ikke-intentionelle. Ofte fungerer de utilsigtede endda bedre end de
tilsigtede: forfatteren har skabt et værk, som er rigere end ham/hende selv.

> --- og det giver heller ikke en "autonom" værkanalyse

Pyt med hvad vi kalder det, jeg tror jeg har forklaret hvad jeg mener.

> > Der er ligesom tre positioner på spil her:
> Du behøver ikke at tiltale andre som idioter, med mindre du postulerer at
> der eksisterer noget som er SOM 'tre positioner' uden at VÆRE 'tre
> positioner', altså 'ligesom' - ellers er det bare et fyldord.

Hey, godt ord igen, der var ingen ond mening i min formulering.

> > (1) Den absolut relativistiske: alle tolkninger er lige gyldige, eller:
> der
> > er lige så mange tolkninger som personer. (Ingen af os to mener åbenbart
> > dette).
> Som ingen andre end socialrelativister henholder sig til.

Hvis du læser nogle af de andre indlæg og tråde i denne nyhedsgruppe vil du
opdage, at denne holdning er overordentligt populær.

> du postulerer
> en autonomi som tillader dig at gribe fat i værket, uden at være besmittet
> af egne holdninger ... Dette kræver en perfekt og rationel viden om
værkets
> konkrete og sande væren - og dermed har du knust ethvert problem med at gå
> til værket; imponerende, taget i betragtning at alle andre har fejlet på
> dette område Problemet med New Historicism er netop, at den forklædt som
> objektivitet postulerer en ideologi, hvilket er hvorfor New Historicism
mere
> eller mindre har mistet sin magtposition efter midten af firserne.
> Det er nogen vanvittig spændende videnskriterier vi taler om, men at
> postulerer autonomi ligger dig ALTID åben for angreb for relativisme!

Jeg forstår ikke meget af, hvad du siger her. Måske betyder "det autonome
værk" andet og mere for dig, end jeg har tænkt det - jeg køber ikke
nødvendigvis hele den kunstteoretiske baggrund. Men lad mig sige, at jeg
skam synes litteraturhistorie er meget interessant, og det vel heller ikke
mange af os, der kan sige os fri fra en vis nyfigenhed hvad angår de
skabende ånders historiske liv (biografier). Receptionsanalyse,
litteraturhistorie og værkanalyse er alle gyldige og relevante discipliner.
Men man skal vælge efter sit formål.

Jeg afskyr når et værk blive reduceret til: "Her kan vi se hvordan
forfatteren oplevede Anden Verdenskrig". En (fiktions)forfatter ville svare:
"Nej, jeg er _forfatter_ Det betyder at jeg skriver _fiktive_ historier. Det
betyder, at hovedpersonens tanker og meninger ikke er mine, men en fiktiv
persons".

> > > > Men hvad vil du så gøre med folkeviser? Bibelen? Eller alle mulige
> andre
> > > > værker, som ikke har en forfatter, eller ikke har én forfatter?
> Beklager, glemte at forsøge en besvarelse
> Hvad angår biblen ville jeg aldrig kaste mig ud i en selvstændig
> værksanalyse; en sådan må nødvendigvis tage udspring i tiden og samfundene
> som biblen er produkt af; ligeså finder jeg det interessant, hvordan du
> ville tage fat i en autonom værksanalyse af biblen ...?

Det kan man sagtens: Læs tekten som den foreligger fra den seneste
redaktion, og gør rede for de forbindelser og meninger der kommer frem i
dens senest redigerede form. Formålet ville være at udlægge den
sammenredigerede tekstmængde, som vi kalder bibelen (den
litteraturvidenskabelige læsemåde).

Bemærk, at jeg siger at det kommer an på formålet med læsningen. Hvis du i
stedet læser bibelen for at forstå noget om de samfund, der har frembragt
teksterne, er det helt ok at du bruger en
redaktionshistorisk/historisk-kritisk tilgang (den religionshistoriske
læsemåde f.eks.).

> Folkeviser finder
> jeg teoretisk set også mere interessante som genretype, at kortlægge
> varianter etc. for at finde ud af hvad de kan sige om tiden og hvad tiden
> kan sige om folkeviserne.

"Hvad de kan sige"? Hvordan afgør du det, altså "hvad de siger", hvis du
ikke anerkender at et værk kan analyseres uden reference til "forfatteren"?

> Det er den slags slutninger vi gerne skulle drage i mødet (det
individuelle)
> med værket; hvis vi bagefter bliver nødt til at diskutere geværet i
> historien er det en god indikation af, at den var andet og mere end blot
en
> Ipsens berømte gevær på en væg - der er forskel på narrative plotelementer
> (som får historien til at skride fremad) og metaforer, analogier,
tematikker
> etc. Sidstnævnte forholder sig helt eller delvist til en omkringliggende
> verden udenfor fiktionen.

Jeg vil sige, at man kan vælge at forholde den til den ikke-fiktive verden.
Men man kan også vælge at forholde den til andre tekster om den ikke-fiktive
verden. Jeg tror det sidste vil give de mest meningsfulde resultater.

> At en analyse er sproglig, at den er tekstuel, at den bygger på en
specifik
> teoretisk retning ligger allerede uden for værket;

En tekst er sproglig - analysen af den er også.

> at spehle et værk i sig
> selv giver ingen mening -
> Vi bliver nødt til at bevidstgøre hvilke elementer
> vi interesserer os for og hvad de skal fortælle os

Jeg mener godt vi kan finde og gøre rede for nogle objektive strukturer i
teksten - f.eks. i fortælleteknikken.

> -- hvilket bringer os
> tilbage til, at hvis du skal forstå et ikke umiddelbart gennemskueligt
værk
> må vi tage udgansgpunkt i de ting som kan forklare os værkets indhold som
> nærliggende nok kunne være instruktøren. At jeg forstår en historie
betyder
> ikke at jeg nødvendigvis forståe dens tematik, og derfor holder pistolen
> ikke!

Hvis det ikke fremgår af filmen, kan den ikke reddes af, at instruktøren
bagefter vil udfylde hullerne. Jeg kan virkelig ikke fatte, at du mener det
skal være nødvendigt at spørge instruktøren. Filmen er så meget mere end
instruktøren. En instruktør kan endda komme til at lave en film, der siger
noget andet, end han ønskede skulle siges.

Jeg vil medgive, at oplysninger om forfatterens hensigter kan være gode
clues til hvor man skal lede, men det rokker ikke ved, at man stadig selv
skal lede og finde belæg i teksten eller filmen.

> > Mener du også at det er nødvendigt for at udlægge Jeppe Aakjærs digte at
> > vide at han var alkoholiker?
> Det kunne tænkes at være værdifuldt, ligesom at det faktum at Nietzsche
> havde syfilis kan belyse visse af hans værker ...?

Jeg vil ikke afskrive mig adgangen til den slags oplysninger; jeg synes også
at det er spændende at læse om Nietzsches liv, men de kan ikke bruges til at
sige noget definitivt om et værk. Du kan sige, at et værk ikke fungerer men
du bør forklare hvorfor med _interne kriterier_, dvs. påvise hvorfor værket
ikke fungerer, og ikke blot bortforklare med, at forfatteren var syg.

Mikkel

---

"Philip Astrup" <97529@os.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd88c52$0$69937$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> Hej Esben
>
> Fandt denne meget gode forklaring, den er desvære på engelsk men ellers
> meget godt forklaret:
>
> Reposted from the old discussion board:
[snip]

Synes du ikke det ville være almindelig anstændighed at fortælle, hvorfra du
har sakset teksten? - imdb.com, så vidt jeg husker.

Der kan i øvrigt findes mange spændende forklaringer og diskussioner af
filmen i news:alt.tv.twin-peaks og i news:alt.movies.david-lynch

Prøv at google på Lost Highway (eller "LH") i disse to nyhedsgrupper
(indgang fra Google->Groups)

Mikkel

---

> Synes du ikke det ville være almindelig anstændighed at fortælle, hvorfra
du
> har sakset teksten? - imdb.com, så vidt jeg husker.

Nope sagen uvedkomende. Offentlig tilgængelig site ingen grund til at give
IMDB credit for den.

Hilsen Philip

---

"Philip Astrup" <97529@os.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd9e415$0$69951$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
>
> Nope sagen uvedkomende. Offentlig tilgængelig site ingen grund til at give
> IMDB credit for den.

Du vil ikke angive kilden, fordi den er offentligt tilgængelig? Det var dog
et utroligt synspunkt. Fortæller du heller ikke, hvor du har oplysningerne
fra, hvis de kommer fra Jyllands-Posten, fordi avisen er offentligt
tilgængelig?

Det handler jo ikke nødvendigvis om "credit", det handler om din egen
troværdighed - og om at være så venlig over for andre at fortælle dem, hvor
de kan se, hvad man selv har fundet, i den sammenhæng hvorfra det er taget.

Mikkel

---

Tja, Esben spurgte af om nogen havde en analyse til filmen, jeg havde en
liggende som jeg tilfældigvis havde fundet på IMDB. Han spurgte der i mod
ikke af om nogen ville skrive hvor han selv kunne gå hen for at finde det.
Foruden det, så syntes jeg ikke at et eller andet mærkeligt synonyn navn fra
en eller anden ukendt person var nødvendig at skrive i min besked.

Men kritikken er taget til følge, næste gang skrive jeg også hvem det er som
har posted det første gang.

> Du vil ikke angive kilden, fordi den er offentligt tilgængelig? Det var
dog
> et utroligt synspunkt. Fortæller du heller ikke, hvor du har oplysningerne
> fra, hvis de kommer fra Jyllands-Posten, fordi avisen er offentligt
> tilgængelig?
>
> Det handler jo ikke nødvendigvis om "credit", det handler om din egen
> troværdighed - og om at være så venlig over for andre at fortælle dem,
hvor
> de kan se, hvad man selv har fundet, i den sammenhæng hvorfra det er
taget.
>
> Mikkel
>
>

---

Nu skrev jeg godtnok "komme med/henvise til en analyse af filmen !
som sådan set godt kan forståes som et ønske om et link til et sted
(ihvertfald hvis man skriver henvise)
Men det er nu ligemeget, for jeg er ret ligeglad med kilden i dette
tilfælde. Havde bare brug for et eller andet perspektiv i filmen og det fik
jeg !!
Havde jeg ønsket kilden havde jeg nok også spugt til den

Vh
Esben

"Philip Astrup" <97529@os.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd9fa5c$0$69922$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> Tja, Esben spurgte af om nogen havde en analyse til filmen, jeg havde en
> liggende som jeg tilfældigvis havde fundet på IMDB. Han spurgte der i mod
> ikke af om nogen ville skrive hvor han selv kunne gå hen for at finde det.
> Foruden det, så syntes jeg ikke at et eller andet mærkeligt synonyn navn
fra
> en eller anden ukendt person var nødvendig at skrive i min besked.

---

Hej Esben

Tak skal du have, jeg tror også at jeg selv i sådanne et tilfælde senere hen
havde bedt om linket til siden, hvis jeg da så at jeg kunne bruge det til
noget.

Hilsen Philip

---

"Philip Astrup" <97529@os.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd9fa5c$0$69922$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> Tja, Esben spurgte af om nogen havde en analyse til filmen, jeg havde en
> liggende som jeg tilfældigvis havde fundet på IMDB. Han spurgte der i mod
> ikke af om nogen ville skrive hvor han selv kunne gå hen for at finde det.

Men der er også andre end Esben der læser dine svar, og under alle
omstændigheder mener jeg det er uetisk at kopiere uden kildeangivelse. Jeg
ville blive vred, hvis nogen citerede mig uden at oplyse, hvorfra teksten
kom.

> Foruden det, så syntes jeg ikke at et eller andet mærkeligt synonyn navn
fra
> en eller anden ukendt person var nødvendig at skrive i min besked.

Du kan have ret i, at når forfatterens rigtige navn ikke kendes er det
mindre interessant end ellers. Men der er dog stadig en e-mailadresse, og
hvem ved, pseudonymet kan godt være kendt på internettet/usenet. Og når du
ikke citerer kan man jo ikke vide, om du ikke gør det, fordi du ikke ved,
hvem der har postet oprindeligt, eller om det blot er fordi du er
uforskammet.

> Men kritikken er taget til følge, næste gang skrive jeg også hvem det er
som
> har posted det første gang.

Fint.

Mikkel

---

"Esben" <jegharikkenogenkonto@spamsi.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3fd87ed2$0$27317$ba624c82@nntp04.dk.telia.net...
> Kan nogen komme med /henvise til en analyse af denne film ???
> efter at have set den igen fornylig er jeg totalt forvirret - er der en
rød
> tråd ?
>

http://www.akademiskopgavebank.dk


Mvh Lise