This weeks readings about reliable versus unreliable narrators and the idea of the ‘cinematic narrator’ have gotten me thinking about the films of David Lynch, especially his later films Lost Highway, Mullholland Dr. (which we will be watching in a few weeks), and INLAND EMPIRE.They seem pertinent to this discussion about reliable vs. unreliable narrators because they all seem to throw the idea of narrative reliability out the window. None of the above mentioned films make a ton of narrative sense, and the idea of a “cinematic narrator” becomes problematic as well because, I would argue, that Lynch himself becomes a cinematic narrator of sorts. There is such a wealth of interesting material in Lynch’s later work and also a wealth of material that seems to run counter to much of the critical readings of this past week that it definitely raises an interesting question about how narration does work in these films, especially when it comes to the reliability of the narrative. These questions of narrative reliability also bring up interesting points to consider about exactly what we can conceive of as reliable in the films, if we can’t trust that there will be ANY kind of narrative coherence or reliability what can we trust? This might best be considered as two related but distinct questions, but does this complete unreliability leave us with nothing but a film full of signifiers with no signified? In other words, are we left with scenes that have no meaning beyond their existence, and if so what does this mean for traditional narrative storytelling?

Some of this material might be covered in a few weeks when we watch Mullholland Dr. but if not this is certainly an interesting topic to consider exploring.

So, after a weekend of agonizing over final research paper topics I hit on something that I found particularly interesting, especially in light of watching Memento and reading about temporality in films. It got me thinking about films where the temporality is more complex than simpleflashbacks or moving back in time from one characters point-of-view (I know this is a loaded term, but for lack of a better turn of phrase it will have to suffice). I was thinking especially about the films of director Allejandro Gonzalez Innaritu and screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga. It seems to me that the temporal complexity in these films opperates differently than the other films we have watched. They aren’t puzzles like Memento, nor do they utilize flashbacks or multiple contemporaneous stories. They jump back and forth in time with little regard for when or why they make these temporal leaps. So, if their temporal structure isn’t operating like any of the other films we have watched or discussed, how does their temporal structure work?

The temporal complexity in films like 21 Grams and Babel were topics of controversy upon their release, so I think that how their temporal structure (or lack thereof) opporates would be a particularly interesting topic to explore.

I have been really enjoying JJ Murphy’s book thus far, however there was one thing that he said that I disagree with, and I’m not sure we are going to have the opportunity to cover it in class, so I thought I would bring it up here. When he discusses Quentin Tarantino’s 1992 film Reservoir Dogs Murphy says that the temporal shifts in the film are basically flashbacks. I’m not so sure that we can simply throw a term at the way that a film like Reservoir Dogs operates. I guess I have always thought that flashbacks were really looking back at the past from the point of view of a single character. I think that Tarantino’s tactic is a little more complicated because his look back at the past is just as objective as any other part of the film. When the film flashes back to show Mr. White’s back story we’re not seeing the flashback from his point of view (neither figurative, nor literal). It is just the objective replaying of Mr. White’s past. It isn’t really important that the flashbacks fall where the do, either. Mr. White’s flashback and Mr. Blonde’s could easily be switched in the film and the film would still make sense, and not have its quality diminished.

I am curious what Murphy would make of the films written by Guillermo Arriaga (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, and Babel). Those films don’t have a particular flashback structure, nor are they puzzle films. In a way they work like Elephant but are less deliberate with it’s choices of when to flashback. At that point do they even count as flashbacks? If not, do we need to come up with a new vocabulary for how these films opporate beyond saying that they are temporally complex?