Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: Hundley on July 30, 2009, 09:59:58 am
-
i was going to just post this in the LAST MOVIE YOU WATCHED topic but i thought it might make for an interesting discussion, so i'm putting this here. at worst it'll make this place look a little more busy.
i had never seen a david lynch film before(elephant man doesn't fucking count at all), so i watched lost highway (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116922/) last night. interesting movie, and a pretty enjoyable experience. it really is the ultimate neo-noir, and i'm usually very skeptical when i hear people apply that term to films nowadays. it's a good watch if you want something that literally functions like a nightmare, which is a trait that i usually appreciate in films. it's refreshing seeing filmmakers who do their own fucking thing, regardless of what anybody else expects of them. i really dig welles' the trial (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057427/) and the work of franz kafka, so it's pretty natural that i would appreciate the work of lynch, assuming this film is a good example of his work.
i do think i take the exception with lynch that a lot of people do, namely in his being a little too abstract, a little too GUTTURAL(if that makes sense) with his concepts. lost highway is a bright film, but i felt like it didn't have enough knowable substance behind the surreal presentation itself. kafka and lynch are really similar stylistically, but at no point is kafka ever needlessly artsy, whereas that's sorta what lynch's deal is to an extent. i don't feel like i can relate awfully well to the inner workings of his works, like his convictions are more scientific in nature.
i think lynch is ultimately a really good example of post-modernism at work. i never cared much for that rationale and approach to film/literature, which is probably why i feel a little distanced from him. i find him a little difficult to really rally behind, despite being an absolutely exceptional filmmaker. i feel like he drifts a little too closely to the style over substance route, which always turns me off a bit. it's like he's more about portraying instinctual understanding rather than knowledge and educated perceptions of the universe. i could be wrong though. i'm basing this off of one film, what i know about the guy, and scattered things i've encountered that he was behind.
i'm still utterly fascinated with the guy, though, despite my knowing better. anybody have any opinion of what the BEST lynch work is? anybody have a good idea of what the fuck this guy's deal is? this is the official DAVID LYNCH TOPIC so talk about this fucking guy already.
-
also i want to say that robert blake's character in lost highway is one of the most unbelievably ironic things i've ever seen in a film. i couldn't believe i was seeing him play that character. talk about getting IN CHARACTER
-
I like David Lynch, but I haven't seen Lost Highway yet. I had it a while ago but it disappeared from my hard drive at some point. My favourite thing I have seen from him is Mulholland Drive, and I also like Twin Peaks quite alot. The thing with these things though is that I cannot remember much about them other than the way things looked and the atmosphere of them. Like in Twin Peaks, there is a soundtrack of about three different themes and they each play pretty much constantly through each episode and it just creates this ridiculous atmosphere about the whole thing. In Mulholland Drive, obviously, there is the whole last half hour but the atmosphere leading up to that is similar to Twin Peaks.
He finds quiet places in America, takes the inevitable feelings of jealousy and paranoia you find there, and then makes all those fears real. Then he throws in some nightmare aspect, like a midget who talks backwards, and he's got himself a story. I still remember his line about the only thing you need for a film is 'a woman in trouble', which I'm not sure if I really like but he probably wasn't serious even if he thinks he was.
Maybe Blue Velvet is best, I think it's usually considered best, but I can't remember much about it right now because I haven't seen it in a few years.
-
The thing with these things though is that I cannot remember much about them other than the way things looked and the atmosphere of them.
oddly enough, i almost wonder if that's his intention. lost highway has had that effect on me, after only a couple days. it was like a nightmare that i couldn't really remember completely(maybe because i was sleepy when watching?????????????)
He finds quiet places in America, takes the inevitable feelings of jealousy and paranoia you find there, and then makes all those fears real. Then he throws in some nightmare aspect, like a midget who talks backwards, and he's got himself a story. I still remember his line about the only thing you need for a film is 'a woman in trouble', which I'm not sure if I really like but he probably wasn't serious even if he thinks he was.
yeah this is why i called his movies not a lot more than instinctual. i kinda look at what these movies are about and wonder IS THAT ALL? i think i'm expecting too much kafka, which is an unfair comparison for anybody ever.
i'm not sure which one to watch next. i'll probably watch mulholland drive. you have said good things about it, and i remember my best professor in college made some big deal about how much he liked it, and he introduced me to a lot of the incredible shit i've raved to you guys about.
my brother told me to never see blue velvet ever, and i remember him saying something to the effect of silent hill 2 being effectively the same story, but doing a better job of it. idk what to think of that because i didn't really give too much of a shit about silent hill 2. i think he's just too comfortable in his khaki pants to embrace the madness.
also by the time i got to this point in the post i decided to watch mulholland drive next. ever since i watched primer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/) i have found my interest in film rekindled, so i've been catching up on all the stuff i never got around to seeing when i was younger. i just need to remember which ones i had always intended to watch.
-
For a film student, it might not be pleasant to admit that the only David Lynch movie I've seen is Dune. But Dune is awful. I can't express with English how awful it is; I have never felt such active displeasure while watching a film. I feel now like I can't trust a David Lynch to be enjoyable because he made something like Dune and thought "this is quality cinema".
But everyone says Mulholland Drive is really good so I should get on to watching that.
-
Mulholland Dr. is absolutely his best movie because it has the most substance and feels the least "needlessly artsy" out of all his movies (not including The Straight Story or The Elephant Man, and maybe Dune but I was on shrooms when I watched it so actually it was awesome).
also holy shit I gotta punch your bro in the face. The reason he's saying it's "basically Silent Hill 2's story" is because the Pyramid Head rape scene was inspire by Blue Velvet. but that's it! just that one scene. tell him he's wrong and dumb and if Mulholland Dr. isn't his best then Blue Velvet is.
-
david lynch? more like kane and lynch, because the intelligence of its followers is questionable heh heh.
i haven't seen lost highway but i was put off lynch after inland empire. his stuff doesn't seem artsy or postmodern to me , his goal seems rather to invoke a feeling and he does it well. but it's the feeling of idk anxiety and he does it with WEIRD STUFF and AWKWARD PAUSES and INDUSTRIAL NOISE IN INAPPRORIATE PLACES and it all feels a little too slow-motion-folk-music-hug-scene for me. it gets lame fairly quickly and this seems to be his BIG THING, and it's not just a trademark it's more like a gimmick. here are some other horrible things he uses too often:
-dream sequences/explanations. this got dumb after it was first used on rugrats
-naomi watts
i came to the realisation the other day that i's unlikely to have a film maker that's incredibly knowledgable on any other subject than film making, and even more unlikely that they're a genius director and a genius in another field or in general as well. as such i've been demanding way too much but still, there's genius and then there's not choking on your own spit.
-
the dune movie was amazing. i loved the fat guy who levitated around.
-
i've only seen eraserhead. i had no idea what to expect, going into it.
it only left me thinking 'wat'
-
There's a point where Lynch's work stops being art and starts being too fucking abstract to be entertaining.
-
two movies out of 10 climbtree, and it was only her voice in inland empire
gw loves mulholland drive. it's a good movie but it was pieced together from lynch's cancelled television project, and you can really tell. it's kind of annoying because it would have probably been the best show ever, but as a movie some parts don't make sense and if you didn't know it was meant to be a television series you'd think it was lynch being surreal just for fun again. I don't think it's his best movie.
I have only seen eraserhead, blue velvet, twin peaks, and mulholland drive. they're all worth watching except for twin peaks after the episode where you find out who killed laura
-
she was the lead in mulholland drive and that is overusing her. other examples of her being overused include king kong and eastern promises. if movies were dishes and actors were dishes naomi watts would be one of those ingredients you can't add too much of otherwise it overpowers all the other flavours. like arsenic.
also i saw it when i was fairly young but i remember the dune movie being pretty magnificent. i also remember overwhelming music at inappropriate times though but that may have just been our copy (VHS)
-
she was pretty good in eastern promises. king kong was garbage though
-
you don't have to respond to that, climbtree has only irrational opinions to express when it comes to davey lunch. it's a parody of lynch's style of directing.
I heart huckabees was good too.
-
she was pretty good in mulholland drive...for obvious reasons :naughty:
-
somehow I've never seen a david lynch film... I mean I pretty much AM David Lynch maybe I just don't have anymore to learn
well I also thought I'd find somebody selling them, I don't buy movies from stores really
Venetian Snares has a track called Make Ronnie Rocket
-
I like Naomi Watts, but I want to have sex with her so maybe she is not as good as I think.
-
I only saw inland empire and hated it, I might check out blue velvet or muholland dr. and get back to this topic but Inland Empire was just too strung out for me.
-
his stuff doesn't seem artsy or postmodern to me , his goal seems rather to invoke a feeling and he does it well.
i don't know what you're basing this on, but lost highway is both artsy and postmodern. i don't mean either of those labels to be a compliment either(i believe the opposite, actually), i'm just stating a fact.
in general i don't see how lynch can be called anything but artsy. a director is artsy when they do nothing but weird, awkward shit, in order to evoke unusual feelings. the entire wikipedia article for art film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film) is littered with references to david lynch films. doesn't mean their selection of movies is any good(i think it's extremely shitty), but that's what lynch is, by definition.
other than that, i'm not going to defend david lynch. lost highway has proven to me that he is an outstanding filmmaker, but i can't fault people for not getting anything at all out of his work. that's my gripe about him thus far anyway.
i came to the realisation the other day that i's unlikely to have a film maker that's incredibly knowledgable on any other subject than film making, and even more unlikely that they're a genius director and a genius in another field or in general as well. as such i've been demanding way too much but still, there's genius and then there's not choking on your own spit.
or maybe you just watch too many shitty movies? i could compile a pretty long list of filmmakers that are clearly knowledgeable about things unrelated to film making, many of which rely heavily on that knowledge when they make their movies. you aren't going to find many like this in hollywood, but these people have existed and still continue to. you just need to look a little harder for them. that's the way it is with all worthwhile art.
i don't even really look at the clowns in hollywood, or anyone making typical high concept bullshit, as being real filmmakers. most of them don't even know anything about filmmaking.
I like Naomi Watts, but I want to have sex with her so maybe she is not as good as I think.
yeah she is pretty mediocre, sometimes ranging towards dreadful. usually her performances are just forgettable, although she really went out of her way to try ruining the international (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963178/). typically sub-par i guess, not like cate blanchett or renee zellweger dreadful.
but i'd like to have sex with her so whatever
-
i'm basing most of my judgements on mulholland drive, inland empire, the amputee and eraser head as i've seen them and they're his weirder ones. the weird stuff in these didn't seem postmodern it just seemed different, the weird stuff wasn't to criticise what film is or make some broader statement, it was there to weird out the audience. it's like a gruesome death in a horror film, to call him artsy or postmodern at the very least implies he's doing something new or innovative with the medium whereas it seems like he's doing the same old thing, tell a story evoke emotion.
or maybe you just watch too many shitty movies? i could compile a pretty long list of filmmakers that are clearly knowledgeable about things unrelated to film making, many of which rely heavily on that knowledge when they make their movies. you aren't going to find many like this in hollywood, but these people have existed and still continue to. you just need to look a little harder for them. that's the way it is with all worthwhile art.
i don't even really look at the clowns in hollywood, or anyone making typical high concept bullshit, as being real filmmakers. most of them don't even know anything about filmmaking.
maybe 1 in 10 of the movies i watch are good, not including MEET THE SPARTANS stuff. i couldn't name a single film maker with a phd that wasn't honorary, though i'm not too BIOGRAPHY when it comes to film makers or any other celebrity really so that's not saying much. also i wasn't saying that directors with other interests or other areas that they're knowledgable don't exist (certainly loads know about economics heh hehheh) just that they're rare. directors are people too and they're not going to research everything and they're gonna muddle concepts or mess up ideas accidently and this is pretty understandable. quentin tarantino is a disgusting moron though
-
to call him artsy or postmodern at the very least implies he's doing something new or innovative with the medium whereas it seems like he's doing the same old thing, tell a story evoke emotion.
you are following incorrect definitions of the terms artsy and postmodern, then. neither term necessarily means that the work be any good, or really be any sort of value judgment. you can be artsy and/or postmodern, but still be extremely shallow and uninventive. hell, i think postmodernism is usually a bad trait, and indicative of a lack of narrative goal and structure.
i more meant that lynch is relatively unique in his style, and proficient in his craft, despite not being a revolutionary filmmaker. i liken him to hitchcock in that regard. knows how to make a generally unique movie, but doesn't really have the conviction necessary to make an important one. i do stand by this, and don't think it's an unreasonable thing to say about him.
maybe 1 in 10 of the movies i watch are good, not including MEET THE SPARTANS stuff.
that's your fault. 8 out of every 10 movies i watch are good, because i don't bother with films i clearly will not like. you should be a bit more discerning in what you watch.
or maybe you just don't like movies, and don't really have a lot of interest in the fundamentals of artistic expression. there's nothing wrong with that i guess, but you're wasting your time with film, literature, etc. if you aren't really interested in how people express themselves creatively.
i couldn't name a single film maker with a phd that wasn't honorary, though i'm not too BIOGRAPHY when it comes to film makers or any other celebrity really so that's not saying much.
how does that even matter? you can learn MORE things that are artistically applicable out in the real world, by experiencing them first hand. a lot of the real geniuses are dropouts anyway, because there's nothing higher education can teach them that they wouldn't be able to figure out themselves. universities, while useful to obtaining specific knowledge of academic subjects, aren't going to promote the understanding and skills necessary to really properly express yourself. it's just guidance, really, and not a lot more when it comes to expression. that comes from within.
also i wasn't saying that directors with other interests or other areas that they're knowledgable don't exist (certainly loads know about economics heh hehheh) just that they're rare. directors are people too and they're not going to research everything and they're gonna muddle concepts or mess up ideas accidently and this is pretty understandable.
they aren't that rare. i think you're looking in the wrong places, or hold filmmakers to some unreasonable standard.
quentin tarantino is a disgusting moron though
yep
-
saw mulholland drive. it's an ok movie, but i wasn't crazy about it. it's effectively the same story as lost highway, which was a little confusing. i don't know why he'd do that twice in a row. either way, i liked lost highway a bit more. i thought the style was a bit stronger, and the story a lot stronger as a whole.
i think if i had seen mulholland drive before lost highway, i would have liked it a lot better. don't get me wrong, it's a very well made movie, and pretty interesting(sometimes it's quite funny too, particularly if you're aware of the structure of it), but i don't think it's really a masterpiece. it's basically the wizard of oz with lesbians.
i do like the narrative structure of it, though. i thought that was pretty neat. i appreciate it when movies do prompt you to reconsider what you've seen, much like primer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/) did. that's usually a pretty shallow gimmick, but it actually added to the premise of this and primer.
i love how roger ebert hated lost highway but loved this, and the big difference is that this movie has great fuck scenes and lost highway didn't. you always felt like you had robert blake looking over your shoulder in lost highway, thereby making the movie impossible to ever be erotic. ebert is so fucking shallow.
-
ahahaha, i'm not joking this ??was/is?? a good discussion. haven't seen things like these in ages.
ok you fuckers i check lost highway when i get the chance!!
-
you are following incorrect definitions of the terms artsy and postmodern, then. neither term necessarily means that the work be any good, or really be any sort of value judgment. you can be artsy and/or postmodern, but still be extremely shallow and uninventive. hell, i think postmodernism is usually a bad trait, and indicative of a lack of narrative goal and structure.
yeah i realised this, postmodernism and art in cinema are different to my conceptions of postmodernism and art. to have 'postmodernist film' seems antithetical to postmodernism, and i would also hesitate to call something that follows a formula artsy (hesitate).
postmodernist work tends to be pretentious though, and so does artsy stuff.
that's your fault. 8 out of every 10 movies i watch are good, because i don't bother with films i clearly will not like. you should be a bit more discerning in what you watch.
or maybe you just don't like movies, and don't really have a lot of interest in the fundamentals of artistic expression. there's nothing wrong with that i guess, but you're wasting your time with film, literature, etc. if you aren't really interested in how people express themselves creatively.
this is weird. there are bad films i like that i didn't count, stuff that i knew wouldn't be good like the new terminator movie or the dark knight. i'm not sure how much more i could screen for bad movies before hand, it'd be like screening for bad books. if you know the author is horrible or the publisher is known for trash then you have a pretty good idea, and trustworthy reviews could help too i suppose. bringing this closer to home i got primer from a dude that had the worst taste in movies, and reading the synopsis it sounded like it'd be pretty bad.
i watch a lot of movies, just because only 10% are good doesn't mean 90% are bad. interested in how people express themselves creatively. i am not inherently interested in how everyone expresses themselves i guess and you can certainly express yourself or ideas poorly so i'm not sure how this would follow.
how does that even matter? you can learn MORE things that are artistically applicable out in the real world, by experiencing them first hand. a lot of the real geniuses are dropouts anyway, because there's nothing higher education can teach them that they wouldn't be able to figure out themselves. universities, while useful to obtaining specific knowledge of academic subjects, aren't going to promote the understanding and skills necessary to really properly express yourself. it's just guidance, really, and not a lot more when it comes to expression. that comes from within.
most ideas are academic subjects. once you get to phd level you've not only mastered the area (supposedly) but you've contributed to it as well. certainly there's streetkids that know their sociological theory but they're not going to be leaders in the field. yeah this type of knowledge isn't directly applicable to artistry but it does affect the 'quality' of the ideas and allusions, though i suppose a broader knowledge base does increase the ways in which you can express yourself. aside from this a phd is measurable and that's why i used it.
i think a talented film maker with a phd in astrophysics would make a better space film than one who was just a talented film maker, or one that was talentless, or joe phd, at least in regards to the space aspects. but an entire film about space would probably involve other topics too, and while the movement of the spaceship in regards to the stars in the background may be perfect other themes might be limited to XENOPHOBIA? BAD. LOVE? GOOD.
-
wow haha I didn't realize lynch's stuff was so violent (reading plot synopseses on Wikipedia) I mean I thought it all was weird and disturbing but like he manages to create a feeling like that without actually having violent stuff happen. I thought the stigma was more that his movies are druggy/etc but yeah I dunno now
I'm still interested in how much of his stuff is intentional because sometimes it seems very EXACT like he told the actors exactly what to do in a scene like move 5 millimeters to the left etc. and there was something in the wiki article about how Blue Velvet is essentially the plot of Spiderman but I dunno if that's true or if David Lynch even realized this or if it's just some Spider-Man nerds relating the universe to spiderman
I think the 'knowing a lot of stuff unrelated to filmmaking' thing is kind of stupid though - like haven't there been lots of sports/martial arts movies that were made by people who know everything about that sort of stuff and were just awful
Edit: Like it's not my sort of thing at all but I don't think a REMEMBER THE TITANS-type movie would be a lot better if it were directed by John Madden
Edit: Don't they have advisors for that sort of stuff anyway
-
saw mulholland drive. it's an ok movie, but i wasn't crazy about it. it's effectively the same story as lost highway, which was a little confusing. i don't know why he'd do that twice in a row. either way, i liked lost highway a bit more. i thought the style was a bit stronger, and the story a lot stronger as a whole.
i think if i had seen mulholland drive before lost highway, i would have liked it a lot better. don't get me wrong, it's a very well made movie, and pretty interesting(sometimes it's quite funny too, particularly if you're aware of the structure of it), but i don't think it's really a masterpiece. it's basically the wizard of oz with lesbians.
i do like the narrative structure of it, though. i thought that was pretty neat. i appreciate it when movies do prompt you to reconsider what you've seen, much like primer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/) did. that's usually a pretty shallow gimmick, but it actually added to the premise of this and primer.
i love how roger ebert hated lost highway but loved this, and the big difference is that this movie has great fuck scenes and lost highway didn't. you always felt like you had robert blake looking over your shoulder in lost highway, thereby making the movie impossible to ever be erotic. ebert is so fucking shallow.
I think Mulholland Dr. has a lot more substance than Lost Highway and though the stories are very similar they are effectively different if you go a little more in depth into Mullholland Dr. Overall Mulholland Dr. feels more complete to me even though looking at how it was made you would think otherwise.
edit: granted I watched Mulholland Dr. first!
-
i'm not sure if i'd really call mulholland drive that much more substantial, if at all. it has more topics at work but i never really got the feeling that they were that critical to the way you are ultimately able to perceive the film. most of the extra substance that everyone speaks of is related to his commentary of hollywood and the film industry in general, which i don't feel is inherently a substantial subject, or was really explored to any particularly impressive extent in the film.
of course, much of this really comes from the fact that the first three quarters or so of the film are told by an extraordinarily unreliable narrator who is tragically unaware of why they have fallen so far. it becomes a little nauseating in retrospect, because you see this person has rewritten their experiences in hollywood, while still embracing the stagnant cesspool that caused their downfall to begin with. don't get me wrong, i like that idea very much, but i felt like the whole betty scenario was too unflinching and idealistic from lynch's end. it's too pretty, too perfect, and i feel ends up going down dangerous ground where you end up over-glamorizing the thing that you're looking to criticize. that so many people made a huge fucking deal of harring's resemblance to people like ava gardner and rita hayworth makes me inclined to believe that much of his commentary was almost completely negated by his approach to this narrative.
i dunno, i just didn't really get anything out of mulholland drive that i hadn't already gotten out of lost highway, which was my primary concern. mulholland drive does endeavor to accomplish a lot more, but i don't think it really had that much bearing on what the film ultimately was. felt more like a variation on a theme rather than this additional substance, like a reorganized version of lost highway with different scenery.
i dunno. what did you get out of mulholland drive that you didn't get out of lost highway?
-
ps good job spelling the film title correctly!! the movie is NOT called mulholland drive, and the difference is pretty enormous if you break it down.
but i have elected to write it that way anyway because it looks so awkward to write dr. all over the place.
sorry david lynch but i am not about to make my writing look sloppy for your artistic integrity!!!!
-
this topic is making me see lost highway and this is why these topics are good smell my dust.
-
next i will make a john huston topic and everyone will be miserable and frustrated like me :(
-
i'm not sure if i'd really call mulholland drive that much more substantial, if at all. it has more topics at work but i never really got the feeling that they were that critical to the way you are ultimately able to perceive the film. most of the extra substance that everyone speaks of is related to his commentary of hollywood and the film industry in general, which i don't feel is inherently a substantial subject, or was really explored to any particularly impressive extent in the film.
of course, much of this really comes from the fact that the first three quarters or so of the film are told by an extraordinarily unreliable narrator who is tragically unaware of why they have fallen so far. it becomes a little nauseating in retrospect, because you see this person has rewritten their experiences in hollywood, while still embracing the stagnant cesspool that caused their downfall to begin with. don't get me wrong, i like that idea very much, but i felt like the whole betty scenario was too unflinching and idealistic from lynch's end. it's too pretty, too perfect, and i feel ends up going down dangerous ground where you end up over-glamorizing the thing that you're looking to criticize. that so many people made a huge fucking deal of harring's resemblance to people like ava gardner and rita hayworth makes me inclined to believe that much of his commentary was almost completely negated by his approach to this narrative.
i dunno, i just didn't really get anything out of mulholland drive that i hadn't already gotten out of lost highway, which was my primary concern. mulholland drive does endeavor to accomplish a lot more, but i don't think it really had that much bearing on what the film ultimately was. felt more like a variation on a theme rather than this additional substance, like a reorganized version of lost highway with different scenery.
i dunno. what did you get out of mulholland drive that you didn't get out of lost highway?
this is a reminder to me to reply to this tomorrow.
-
i kind a feel bad being so harsh about lynch because i watch shit like this and it helps me remember how awesome david lynch is
-
I don't think he made hollywood too glamorous. but iirc he didn't want to criticize hollywood itself too much and he consciously wanted to incorporate the things he liked about the hollywood of his era. you aren't supposed to finish the film and think man, look what holly wood does to people. anarchy forever.
-
in short the reply that I wanted to make was that I felt like the movie was more of a psychological profile than a criticism of Hollywood (obviously by doing a psychological profile that criticism is present but all that glamor and idealism is more of a result of Diane's character and not so much of Lynch trying to make a point although I think the point still stands).
also I got a lot more out of Mulholland Dr. (I have this weird insistence on spelling it that way even though I agree that it looks awkward) as far as overall atmosphere/story/IN DEPTH ANALYSIS (could talk about it for days)/emotional investment/structure etc. I am kind of copping out right now and not giving a complete answer but I don't feel like writing an essay right now so... maybe later.
Of course Lost Highway had Gary Busey and Henry Rollins in it so it wins there.
-
in short the reply that I wanted to make was that I felt like the movie was more of a psychological profile than a criticism of Hollywood (obviously by doing a psychological profile that criticism is present but all that glamor and idealism is more of a result of Diane's character and not so much of Lynch trying to make a point although I think the point still stands).
also I got a lot more out of Mulholland Dr. (I have this weird insistence on spelling it that way even though I agree that it looks awkward) as far as overall atmosphere/story/IN DEPTH ANALYSIS (could talk about it for days)/emotional investment/structure etc. I am kind of copping out right now and not giving a complete answer but I don't feel like writing an essay right now so... maybe later.
you know, this is a pretty big cop out. i was kinda hoping to hear why you thought it was more substantial, but this does not help me figure that out! i'm worried that i missed something critically important in 'mulholland dr.'(hey look i did it right this time) and that you could show me the light. by this i just figure you just prefer it to lost highway which is really a fair enough explanation, really, as that's really my main justification for liking it more.
Of course Lost Highway had Gary Busey and Henry Rollins in it so it wins there.
actually i was a little bummed how underused a lot of the cameos were, especially busey, rollins, and pryor. cool that they were in there, though.
-
i just watched blue velvet again. it was good. i think i'll talk about it some more later.
-
i like mulholland dr *flops left hand around, is raging homosexual*
http://www.geocities.com/~mikehartmann/papers/wallace.html
-
since i've stared at the disaster train wreck of jacob's ladder i have grown to like david lynch a lot more. i'm just glad there's somebody so angry and distinct out there making these absurd fucking movies that nobody really understands. he's such a ridiculous fucking guy! despite being in his 60s, he still has that fiercely individual reckless artist approach that you don't usually see people maintain such a powerful hold on past their 20s. like welles grew out of his war of the worlds fuck with people 24-7 phase when he was in his mid-20s, but lynch is an old man and still does shit like dumbland rather than grow up and try to do less ambitious EPICS and shit like that.
this isn't all good obviously, and i think it kinda caps what his movies can ultimately accomplish, but it's good to see somebody doing this. it kinda prevents him from really being able to make a masterpiece, but it keeps his work consistently fresh and oddly bright-eyed despite him being a pretty jaded guy. my microscopically-veiled jab at lynch in 78641 (http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=10450.0) kinda summarizes how i feel on the matter. he's a profoundly fucking weird dude, but there is this odd wondrous quality about him that is impossible to dislike.
-
i just watched blue velvet again. it was good. i think i'll talk about it some more later.
Blue Velvet is pretty damn great! It's likely up there with some of my favorite all time movies.
The film you should really all see by Lynch, however, is Eraserhead. For people who want to grasp at a kind of coherent story, it's pretty out there and gone in that field. It is, however, a brilliant little package full of all the things I love about David Lynch films. It's stark and gritty, surreal, and almost "symphonic" in it's use of sound. Not that there's any orchestral music in there... that's not what I'm saying... but the way random noises and environmental sounds play together with sparse organ music... it's really beautiful, I feel.
His later films Mulholland Drive and such... they're alright... they never grabbed me quite as much as his earlier work on things like Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, and Wlid At Heart though... still... a brilliant film maker, yeh!
One word of advice... sometimes it's good to avoid trying to "understand" a film... sure understanding plot and character can be a rich experience for a viewer... I won't deny that... but in some cases, like Lynch's films, I think it's much more appropriate to seek to "experience" the film. Kind of like how you would experience a trip to some new and interesting spot of scenery... or an instrumental concert of music. You're not always scrutinizing every detail or what the things you see/hear "mean"... instead you're often just happy enough to experience their texture and how they "feel", no?
P.S. - Hundley, the film "Jacob's Ladder" is directed by Adrian Lyne. As far as I know, David Lynch had no involvement in that. It does have a similar surreal and frightening feel to it though, so I suppose I could see where you'd make a connection between the two.
-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/afps-rki091509.php
watching david lynch/reading kafka improves learning abilities.. interesting study although i'm unsure of its merit
-
Hundley, the film "Jacob's Ladder" is directed by Adrian Lyne. As far as I know, David Lynch had no involvement in that.
MANY THANKS
i do not have access to the imdf(the letter f is froken on my keyfoard) so i was unafle to verify this fit of information
-
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/afps-rki091509.php
watching david lynch/reading kafka improves learning abilities.. interesting study although i'm unsure of its merit
I watched a few Lynch last semester for one of my class and got better grades all around in my classes.
THEORY PROVEN!!
-
I have been watching alot of David Lynch and reading all this crap about him and interviews, lately. I think Lost Highway was a great film. Lynch has lady issues.
-
I have been watching alot of David Lynch and reading all this crap about him and interviews, lately. I think Lost Highway was a great film. Lynch has lady issues.
Lost Highway is one of the ones i keep forgetting about, but it's my favorite when compared to his mostly surreal works. Otherwise, Wild at Heart and all that other shit.
-
I think, putting interpretations of the stuff he does that is pointless to interpret aside, all of David Lynch's stuff is really straightforward. Even with his reluctance to talk about the meaning, he confirms all you need to know about Mulholland Drive, for example, when he says "for me, it's a love story.". That story is about a person who feels unimportant being in love with someone they think is very important, and all the crazy/dark/exciting stuff that can lead you to feel. All the 'surreal' stuff - like the cowboy, or mr. roque - is just Lynch having fun in his adding meat to the bones of that. The story makes sense without that stuff, but it being there can help you feel the things that the story can offer you by fleshing out all the feelings of trouble, forces beyond our control, things that don't add up - all that stuff. It's just there for feeling, which is a very common thing for people to say about David Lynch, but it often gets followed up with a criticism about that being all that is there. I don't think it is, I think there is an honest story at the centre of everything I've seen from David Lynch so far, he just tells it in his own way using his own strange tools and that is great. It's alot of fun to watch.
-
oddly bright-eyed despite him being a pretty jaded guy.
Why do you say he is jaded, hundley?
-
david lynch owns. i've seen eraserhead, blue velvet, lost highway, mulholland dr., elephant man, inland empire, dune (i sat through the whole thing and have never read the books), and a ton of his short film stuff that was really cool. i don't really have any insight or anything on his stuff i just think it's cool and i enjoy it.
oh yeah i like the ambient noise in his movies, especially that cool wind noise. he just throws some subtle-ass wind in the background when the characters are really confused or whatever.