I was watching the remake of The Omen recently and I noticed a trend: scary randomness.

There are lots of classic seens in horror movies that seem to be put in because they contain memorable disturbing images, yet have very little to do with plot.  There's the guy getting a blowjob from his bear-suited friend in The Shining, the guy from Poltergeist pulling off his own skin, countless dream sequences where some scary animal/person/thing appears in a place you could not see previously but in which you thought there was nothing, a hand coming out of Sarah Michelle Gellar's head in The Grudge, etc.

So when does randomness work and when is it cheap/stupid?  What is it about random scary scenes is so tempting for directors to include?  Got any more scary/funny examples?

I know exactly what scene in Mulholland Drive that you are talking about. And yes, that takes the cake. I've had that "thing" burned into my psyche forever since I've seen the film years ago. It is without a doubt one of the most shocking things I've ever seen in a movie. I remember rewatching the film with a friend some time ago and really not looking forward to seeing that again. My heart was pumping like crazy. And it really catches you off guard because the film is nothing near a horror movie. At least if you go into a movie knowing its horror your brain prepares for a shock....but that was quite a powerful sucker punch.

I recommend that movie to anyone just for that part. See if you can stare into the  screen without flinching.

The former.

I just wanted to clarify that AFAIK the man in suit/bear scene in The Shining is actually rooted into history of the Overlook Hotel. There's a whole background on it in King's book I believe, and it has to do with lots of hot, steamy gay sex. But yeah, without this context it seems pretty random.

For whoever doesn't know what scene in Mulholland Drive they're talking about, it's this one.

Mulholland Drive was originally filmed as a pilot for a new David Lynch TV show.

I imagine that, if it had gone to series, all that randomness would have been explained, eventually.

Or would it have?

Lynch's work is impressionistic. As Freud might say, "Sometimes a crazy trash monster and pile of lesbians are just a crazy trash monster and pile of lesbians." Don't read too much into it.

Well, between you and me, the last thing I'm doing when I see a pile of lesbians is reading, no matter the circumstances.

Obviously,  the fun of watching a Lynch movie is to try to figure out things for yourself and/or enjoy the sex scenes. Even more so since Lynch doesn't do commentary tracks that explain what the fuck is going on. But for Mulholland Drive he gave out ten clues that should help viewers to get a grip on the metaphors and stuff in the movie:

David Lynch's clues:

1) Pay particular attention to the beginning of the film: at least two clues are revealed before the credits.

2) Notice appearances of the red lampshade.

3) Can you hear the title of the film that Adam Kesher is auditioning actresses for? Is it mentioned again?

4) An accident is a terrible event... Notice the location of the accident.

5) Who gives a key, and why?

6) Notice the robe, the ashtray, the coffee cup.

7) What is felt, realised and gathered at the club Silencio?

8) Did talent alone help Camilla?

9) Note the occurrences surrounding the man behind 'Winkies'

10) Where is Aunt Ruth?


I like to think Lynch was fed up with journalists pestering him about the meaning of the film and he just pulled some "clues" out of his ass. Which, by the way, is something that I can imagine characters in his movies end up doing in a very literal way.

If only UTMK were still around, maybe he could tell us.