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 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 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 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.