The Seattle Times, October 14, 2001

 



'Mulholland Drive' star finds David Lynch 'fun' 

By Moira Macdonald


Last month, while in town on a press tour for David Lynch's dark love story "Mulholland Drive," actor Naomi Watts told me quite a bit
about the film. And I really feel that I shouldn't tell you what she said.

This is quite the opposite of how promotional interviews usually work; essentially, they exist in order to be conveyed to readers. But
audiences deserve to go into Lynch's film knowing as little as I did on my first screening, so that they, too, can experience the fever
dream that is "Mulholland Drive" without expectations. 

So, if you haven't seen the film already, scroll down. If you saw "Mulholland Drive" this weekend, and are busily swirling it around
your head, read on. 

The blond Watts, who's in her early 30s, curled up on an armchair in a posh Four Seasons suite last month and chatted at length
about the film (in a lilting Australian accent that bore little resemblance to her very American "Mulholland Drive" voice).
"Mulholland" was her first experience working with Lynch, and she clearly was charmed by him. 

"You think that with all those intense, dark, twisted characters, he's going to be a broody, intense guy, but he's just the complete
opposite," said Watts. "He could not have been more open, charming, affable. (Working with him) becomes like a game, and
it's a lot of fun. There's a lot of trust." 

Her "Mulholland Drive" journey began more than two years ago, when she was called to audition for the role of "an actress who's
new in town in pursuit of her dreams." By contrast, Watts, a native of England who moved to Australia as a young teen, is hardly new
on the scene. She had been a hardworking but little-known actor for more than a decade, making her screen debut in "Flirting" and
later appearing in "Tank Girl," "Dangerous Beauty" and other feature and TV movies. 

At the time, "Mulholland Drive" was set to be a TV pilot, but Watts knew nothing else about it — no screenplay, no story line. Her
"audition" consisted of two brief meetings with Lynch, chatting in his office. (The director is known for his unusual casting methods;
he spends a great deal of time looking at photographs and ultimately meets with only a small handful of actors.) 

After shooting the film as a two-hour TV pilot for ABC, the network wavered and the cast disbanded. "We kept hearing news,"
remembered Watts, "but every bit of news was conflicting. There was talk of it going to another network, to a cable channel,
becoming a TV movie — a whole list of things that it was going to be, and none of them worked out." 

Thanks to a last-minute infusion of cash from a French production company, Lynch was ultimately able to retool the film into a
2-1/2-hour feature. Watts was thrilled with the outcome: "I would have loved the opportunity to carry on down the road with those
characters and that trajectory, moving within the David Lynch world of interesting, breakthrough characters on TV. But (the
feature) is ultimately the best payoff that could have happened." 

Watts wasn't the only one impressed by the film. At this year'sī Cannes International Film Festival, Lynch was named co-winner
of the Best-Director award. 

But what of the movie's mysterious dream logic? Described in promotional materials only as "a love story set in the city of
dreams," "Mulholland Drive" is both knotty noir and oddball valentine to Hollywood, told through the starry eyes of an ingenue
(Watts) and the jaded eyes of a trendy director (Justin Theroux). But all is not what it seems here, and the movie's final half-hour
yanks the rug out from under the audience, leaving much head-scratching in its wake. 

Lynch, in typical fashion, won't say what it all means. "He doesn't like to divulge too much," said Watts, "because it stops people
thinking and talking about it. He's not trying to make people feel stupid, he just wants people to search a little more and in some
possible way, be able to relate to (the movie)." 

Watts was more forthcoming — and do go away if you don't want to hear this — in explaining her view of the film. "It's a love story,
and it's dream vs. reality, about how things really are not what they seem. To me, it was about a woman who falls in love with
someone who represents everything she wants and doesn't have. The latter part of the film is the reality-based truth, and the former
part of the film is her dream — basically her fantasy of how she wishes it could have been." 

Make sense? Maybe not; I've seen "Mulholland Drive" twice and am still not quite sure I've put all the pieces together. But it doesn't
matter, according to Watts. "Some people don't understand (the movie): Is it a dream, or is it just one thing? But I think that's David's
endeavor behind it. It's your movie, and you can do whatever you want with it." 

Moira Macdonald can be reached at 206-464-2725 or mmacdonald@seattletimes.com.