Expostion in film, good - okey or yuch

^ Again, I think there is a confusion between "exposition" and "explanation". In the first minutes of Mulholland Drive, there are several expository elements: the close-up on the blond woman in the dance sequence, the street sign "Mulholland Dr.", the view on Hollywood... They situate where the story unfolds and give an indication of a first character and the clothing give a first indication about the time period in which the story unfolds. This gets more elaborate after the titles.

That a spectator doesn't understand what it is about (and clearly, Lynch in this film wants us to get lost), doesn't mean that there is no exposition.

Every narrative uses exposition, all narrative theorists agree about this. That there are people who give an other meaning to the word in order to dismiss it doesn't change the fact that a narrative (novel, play, film) that doesn't use exposition is not a narrative.

Maybe this article explains it better than I do (and this is also valid for theatre and cinema and even epic poetry...).

It is not a "requirement" in the sense that there is no "story police" who will fine you. It is just a given how narrative functions.

Now, here is a film that doesn't use exposition - Begone Dull Care, by Norman McLaren:

This is, thus, not a narrative film.

Edit: I stumbled upon this very to the point, instructive and clear video on exposition in cinema (but what he finds cleverly done in Jurassic Park I found that utterly boring...):