Yes, David Lynch is GOD. Twin Peaks was the perfect TV series, though the series finale was real cruel and unusual punishment. And Mulholland Drive was amazing, though I must confess that I need a couple of viewings and a Salon article to fully understand it. Wild at Heart was terrific, and Blue Velvet is a classic. Surprisingly, I wasn't so big on The Straight Story. It was just a little too slow and not quirky enough (after the first five minutes, which were funny as hell).
Posts: 314 | Location: Cali | Registered: 14 May 2004
Terrible. I fail to see what people like about this director. I think people like it simply because other people say it's brillant.
If I were to put a whole bunch of nonsensical images together, through in a "it was a dream" surprise ending, and call it a movie people would laugh me out of Hollywood. Anyone can create something that doesn't make sense. Where's the skill in that. But if Lynch does it, people call him a genius.
I think he's like those artists who put blank canvases up at modern art galleries and say they created something special. Skillful artists can move people because of their ability to touch people in a way they can identify with. An artist that simple confuses people is not skillful...just over-rated.
Posts: 25 | Location: Wisconsin, USA | Registered: 20 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by enkydu: If I were to put a whole bunch of nonsensical images together, through in a "it was a dream" surprise ending, and call it a movie people would laugh me out of Hollywood. Anyone can create something that doesn't make sense. Where's the skill in that. But if Lynch does it, people call him a genius.
But have you seen Blue Velvet? It's nothing like that.
quote:Originally posted by enkydu: If I were to put a whole bunch of nonsensical images together
I assume you're talking about Mulholland Drive, in which case: What about the images do you find nonsensical? Nearly every single one is traceable to a neurosis or desire of the dreaming character. The incredible thing about this movie, IMO, is not the suspension of disbelief, the surprise, or the confusion it generates, but the meticulous way it gels together as you watch it several times. In this respect, I like it the same way I like Memento, but Mulholland digs far deeper psychologically (if less philosophically) and is far more of an intellectual plunge.
Best wishes, ~V
Posts: 570 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
All right, go ahead and dismiss Eraserhead and The Elephant Man. Eraserhead is much more pure Lynch than Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart, Twin Peaks (the movie), Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr. The Elephant Man is much more commercial than ANYTHING that Lynch has done, but I still think that it's more honest, before Lynch decided that commercially he could get away with anything. Elephant Man isn't even remotely commercial, but somehow the punk got away with it because he was so in tune with the outsider. He also had what seemed like an all-star cast. Lynch should probably film all his movies in black and white. I'm not a big fan of Eraserhead, but as far as a show-off piece of film technique (and sophomoric humor, which means much more now than it did when it came out), it far surpasses the rest of the Lynch oeuvre. I will admit that Mulholland Dr. is a step up from other recent Lynch daymares because it allows the viewer to interpret almost every single scene from the get-go, at least if you know what to expect from Lynch.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by enkydu: Terrible. I fail to see what people like about this director. I think people like it simply because other people say it's brillant.
If I were to put a whole bunch of nonsensical images together, through in a "it was a dream" surprise ending, and call it a movie people would laugh me out of Hollywood. Anyone can create something that doesn't make sense. Where's the skill in that. But if Lynch does it, people call him a genius.
I think he's like those artists who put blank canvases up at modern art galleries and say they created something special. Skillful artists can move people because of their ability to touch people in a way they can identify with. An artist that simple confuses people is not skillful...just over-rated.
I thought Mulholland Dr. was quite entertaining. Though there is much that I must admit I still don't understand (having only seen it once). I found myself amazed at how some things meshed very nicely and just how f*cked up Lynch's mind is.
In response to the person who claimed that Lynch simply "through" a bunch of random shit together I must say that in this case you are sorely mistaken. I've heard this point of view a million times and have even thought it myself, however, I don't think Lynch's work qualifies as "random". It all boils down to INTENT. If his intentions were to create specifically and precicely (which they were) the sequence of scenes and the hidden meanings that is Mulholland Dr. then his film should be seen for what it is. Don't look at it as random, because all of it was carefully and meticulously planned. It's not like Lynch just turned on the camera and let it roll, then cut random scenes together. I'm sure a script, storyboard, and everything else included in preproduction was carried out over a long period of time.
The artist who displays a blank canvas and calls it art should not be immediately dismissed either. Unfortunately the concept of the "artist" has been stretched so far that our world now has "conceptual artists". These people find ways to display concepts. In today's society, an idea alone can be considered art. So if someone puts up a blank canvas with the intent of demonstrating how our society is so f*cked up that we even consider blank canvases art work, then that person is successful in communicating that idea. The simple fact that the canvas would be displayed in a gallery would be enough to get the idea across.
I'm not saying that's what their intent is, it's just an example. You just have to understand that that kind of stuff, whether you like it or not, is nowadays considered an art form.
K-Dog
Posts: 196 | Location: Purgatory | Registered: 04 June 2004
My last discussion of Lynch left out "Dune", "The Straight Story" and "Twin Peaks" TV show. I will admit that, when the TV show started, I thought it was the best thing that Lynch had ever done, and I continued to believe that until about a year-and-a-half in, when the whole thing seemed to turn into something from "The Wizard of Oz": "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" (another of Lynch's fetishes.)
"Dune" had some awesome art/set direction and special effects, but it was obviously so-edited that it was incomprehensible if you hadn't read the book several times. Still, since I'd seen all of Lynch up to that time, it didn't SEEM that bad to me.
I always loved Richard Farnsworth, as an actor ("The Grey Fox"), an extra ("Papillon") and a stunt man ("Comes a Horseman"). I TRULY felt sorry when he committed suicide over his health problems, but aside from his grace and honesty, "The Straight Story", a G-rated film from Lynch (!), was just too underdeveloped to get involved with.
Come on now, somebody else has opinions about Lynch, the further from mine, the better.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
"Dune" was an absolutely appaling film. There is no reason any film should be that bad. It was a relatively simple story just turned to overly complex 3 hour garbage thanks to a whole ton of needless exposition. I tried hard to like that film, I really tried hard to like it, but not even the artistic direction or soundtrack by Toto could save it.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
Don't be so tuff on David, he's one of the best and most individual stylist in American film. His stories may be on the obscure side, fraught with sexual hysteria and masturbatory yearnings, but look at what's in the frame. His images are gorgeous, and together they work on you in ways that dreams are s'pose to. Tell me Lost Highway isn't disturbing. Tell me that Eraserhead isn't about love. You won't ever feel that way about J Lo or Cameron Diaz, but take my word for it, it is. And some dark night, bereft or strung out, you'll know that it is.
Was there anything like it on American television before or after Twin Peaks? Think about that, and Blue Velvet, as a dark cultural critique of American mass culture, consumerist, self absorbed, puritanical yet imagining that we have a manifest destiny. And of course, underneath it all, the apple pie, the Norman Rockwell homilies, the corruption, vanality, hipocracy next to the white picket fences and daffodils and the firemen in their yellow and black slickers going down main street while you're trying to get your high school sweetheart to give it up in the rumble seat of the '58 DeSoto. (I may have gotten the auto details wrong...)
Who else in American film does this? Jarmush preaches to the choir. Altman's at Grosford Park. Where is Sam Peckenpah and Sam Fuller when we need 'em.
As for Dune, it is iconic, especially the complete Japanese version. Proof is when you see the cable remake and the silly pointless sequel, Children of Dune. Don't tell me the Herbert isn't clunky. I read the damn thing in Analog in installments. Sure, I can imagine a better Dune, but until I see it, this will have to do.
How was Lost Highway disturbing? You must be very sensitive! Personally I think Lynch is a self-absorbed wanker who doesn't care about his audience one bit. The Elephant Man is a great movie, but after that Dune was the next best thing he has done! Personally I find Twin Peaks, Blue Velvet and the rest to be absolute trash! On the other hand, my girlfriend who is a surrealist painter, loves his work. That I can understand, but for myself, who enjoys a good story, he is one of my least favorite directors of all time. I find his work to be extremely pretentious. Disturbing? Only that people think he is brilliant. Real disturbing is the 10 minute long scene of a live pig being blowtorched in Traces of Death, not some chump masturbating his wet dreams on to the movie screen.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
quote:Originally posted by Smenkharon: Personally I think Lynch is a self-absorbed wanker who doesn't care about his audience one bit.
Thats the good thing about Lynch; he makes the kind of films that HE would like to see, not the kind of films he thinks an audience would want to see. I guess it means some will like it, some will hate it and some will be just plain tripped out by it.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
The great Lynch dillema. He's the Woody Allen of freaks. . .assuming Woody Allen isn't the Woody Allen of freaks. You love him or you hate him, but usually if you hate him you still like one or two of his films. Me, I could do without him. Blue Velvet is choice and The Elephant Man is impossible to dislike, but the rest of his catalogue I'm indifferent to, having not seen Eraserhead admittingly (-5 film geek points I know, I know).
With so much of the same thing regurgitated over and over again and so little thought put in to many movies these days, cinema needs a David Lynch to throw a Moneywrench in things once in a while. Actually get people "out of their seat" and think about what they are seeing. As others have said, Blue Velvet was a genius creation. A peek into a dark and evil world that no one dared look into until Lynch came along.
--
Yea, well you see this one? This was my dream, my wish....and it didn't come true. So I'm taking it back, I'm taking them all back. -Face
Originally posted by Member 27: Thats the good thing about Lynch; he makes the kind of films that HE would like to see, not the kind of films he thinks an audience would want to see. I guess it means some will like it, some will hate it and some will be just plain tripped out by it.
I agree, but it's also worth pointing out that he respects his audience. His films never have a sense of self-importance. I believe that if someone walked up to him and told him how much they hated Mulholland Drive and why, he would listen to their argument, genuinely interested in what they didn't like about it. He really understands and respects the art of cinema.
Posts: 53 | Location: CA | Registered: 03 November 2005
The first two David Lynch films I saw were Dune and Blue Velvet and I wasn't too impressed. Later I read Ebert's review on Blue Velvet and came to dislike Lynch even more. I saw him interviewed in a Blue Velvet dvd extra and he seemed cocky. I pretty much decided to avoid his movies in the future. Later I became curious about Mulholland Dr. because the story intrigued me and it had been very positively received. So I gave it the true test and looked it up on Ebert's site and was amazed that to see it given 4 out of 4 stars. I ended up watching it and it's one of my favorite movies now. After that I also saw Lost Highway and The Elephant Man. In these three films I saw a real compassion for the oppressed, weak, and outcasts of society. Now I'm starting to wonder if I misread Blue Velvet. I think I did. Ebert's huge gripe with the movie was the nude scene that Isabella Rossellini did. He felt that Lynch totally shamed her in that scene where she was naked on the lawn in a state of shock. I appreciate Ebert's consideration for Rossellini, but I think this scene like many other Lynch scenes shows a person in a state of desperation. To see people so broken, like The Elephant Man, Patricia Arquette's characters in Lost Highway, and Naomi Watts's, Diane in Mulholland Dr. make their redemption or freedom that much more powerful. If the Elephant Man wasn't so repulsive, his being accepted and loved wouldn't have meant as much. There's also a theme of innocents being persecuted without cause or reason. So while I used to avoid Lynch because I saw him as crass, I now consider him my favorite director.
On a side note. I think he'd be the best person to do an interpretation on the life of Jesus. I believe Lynch could bring something fresh and thought provoking to a story that's gone stale.
The first two David Lynch films I saw were Dune and Blue Velvet and I wasn't too impressed.
I'm surprised that I haven't posted anything on this thread dealing with David Lynch, but perhaps I have been hiding or something. But your brief but concise opinion of Dune (1984) not being too impressed is much different from my own recollection having seen the movie three or four times. Having read the novel a long time ago but also being a science fiction fan, I've had a fondness for this movie ever since I first saw it. Several points that I particularly enjoyed was the plot of the movie which I found fairly comprehensible, I knew what was going on, though in both movie versions great pains, sometimes intrusively, are taken to attempt to explain the main characters and the setting. I also found the set design and costume design very science fiction and effective. David Lynch did the water planet very well and the scene with the father (The Duke Leto) and his son was fabulously poignant and significant, capturing the whole otherworld atmosphere and the emotional connection a formal hiearchical leader with his son. The whole presentation of this movie was so stylistic, the evil Baron was one of the most classic in movie history with this fiendish fetishes, this movie well before the gross out movies of today. The science fiction component of this movie and its epic presentation made this movie a solid winner in my opinion.
Posts: 915 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
your brief but concise opinion of Dune (1984) not being too impressed is much different from my own recollection having seen the movie three or four times. [QUOTE]
As my opinion of Lynch has greatly changed in the last few months I may watch Dune again to reevaluate it. So far out of the Lynch movies I've seen, Mulholland Dr. and The Elephant Man are great while Lost Highway and Blue Velvet are good. I like what Lynch is trying to do even when it doesn't quite work out. When it does work it's incredible. I'm really looking forward to his new movie coming out this year. Does anyone know when it will be released in theaters?
I like David Lynch, but he's a guy who likes to go right to the edge and sometimes he drives right over the cliff.
I am a big fan of MULHOLLAND DRIVE and it made a movie star out of Naomi Watts (for better or worse). I too found it confusing and don't know if I understood it all when I caught it on original release. That said, I found it an awful interesting film that only Lynch could make. One interesting note about MD is that it was originally made as a one-hour TV pilot. The TV execs took one look at its convoluted story line and nixed it so Lynch expanded the story and turned it into a feature film. That may explain why it is somewhat disjointed.
I'm surprised that people are not as high on BLUE VELVET. As far as I'm concerned that film is his masterpiece. I remember seeing that one on original release back in the 1980s and being totally blown away by its originality and skewed perspective. I don't think there has been another film quite like it. It is being revived for a two-week run by one of the NYC rep houses this March and I plan to take another look at it.
