Sick Of It All
Alex
even about the movies. I'm sorry to say this, but even Lynch redoes and reworks
the same stories over and over and over in his own body of work. Does that make
him an auteur, or just a guy who's running out of ideas? I don't know. His films
aren't as original as you think. Lots of his imagery harks back to the French
Impressionist/Dadaist and German Expressionist cinema of the 20s. You can't
condemn people for liking Titanic just because there have been millions of love
stories told before in the movies. You can't get angered by the fact that people
like Jackie Chan movies. People are just different. The majority of the US only
goes to the movies a handful times a year. And the fact is, the majority of people
just want to get entertained. You can't blame them for wanting to see silly fun
and not being open to other kinds of cinema. They aren't close minded or
pathetic. They are real people with real jobs and family who just want to relax (I
think deservedly) and that's absolutely fine. It's like drinking Bud after a
grueling week of midterms. You could get better beer, but when you just want to
get drunk, you just get drunk. (boy wasthat a week analogy)
Don't tell me that people don't go to see rather mainstream filmmakers such as
Waters and Kubrick. It's simply not the case. Of course a Waters' flick won't
make millions, but people do see them. I personally think that Waters has gone
south as a director and his early shock films are just plain gross and honestly
lack any art. Ask anyone. I watch Pink Flamingos to laugh and get grossed out.
not to revel in its vacant artistry. Kubrick on the otherhand, is a hugely
successful filmmaker. You should know that. His films have generally done
exceedingly well at the B.O. And, most people think very highly of his work. Wait
till his new one comes out, you'll see how appreciated and popular he is. If you
really want to make a statement and not just complain, first be a little more open
minded yourself. There are hardly any "art" movies made anymore. Nothing has
reached the level of abstraction where you could consider a film as a work of art
(I'm excluding of course the works of Brakhage, Gehr, Sokurov, etc). I'd hardly
consider BV or LH as works of art. They are just movies that will make some people
think about them.
Anyway, just to shed more light.
Regards,
Alex
Buttclutch wrote:
> finally after a couple years of absolute non sense and antagonistic verbiage, I
> think I have snapped. First off I am making sure this isn't misunderstood as a
> hypocritical heap of close minded views. This is in complete Lynch<and other
> artists> defense. What right do people have to say that his movies are
> horrible? they compare Lynch's work to films that have been redone and redone
> and scripts that are the same story as every other story on screen. People
> gawked over titanic, how many times have we heard that story? people cheered
> and jump up and down for every Jackie Chan movie they will make. I don't
> understand it...WHY ARE THEY SO CLOSED MINDED AND PATHETIC THAT THEY CAN"T EVEN
> STOP TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE? SOMETHING NEW!!!
> something original ! ! I don't think it matters whether or not its Lynch's work
> but look at people like David, like John Waters, like Kubric...people that make
> a film difference in the world. People immediately discard there valliant
> efforts as trash, because maybe at first it doesn't "make sense" or becasue its
> weird or different. Film was made for two reasons I believe, 1.) to entertain,
> and 2.) to provide another form of expression, another art. I guess I just
> can't bring myself to comprehend peoples biased opinions on the recycled trash
> they are fed over and over again, I guess the saddest part is that they still
> eat it right up.
> thanks for listening while I vented a little anger
> steve
Neil Samuel Witkin
to create art that means something to me. Many people hate the images I
create, because they're dark, horrid, and don't make immediate sense. I
don't make them this way for shock value. I do it to engender a
cathartic feeling in myself [and hopefully a few others].
Anyway, the good part about all this is that I'd hate for every jackass
out there to like Lynch. [Please don't kill me at this point! I'm not
trying to compare myself to Lynch]. It's more enjoyable to me when I feel
like I can appreciate what they discard. They can go line dance in their
Khakis and watch Home Improvement and Titanic all they want.
The best part about it, though, is that for artists who create work like
this, [artists like Lynch and Waters], there is so much opportunity. The
world isn't saturated with their kind of art. It's rare and beautiful.
Sorry for my stupid little rant. I hope it makes some sort of sense.
The Bearded Hungarian [Pinchy]
Buttclutch
think I have snapped. First off I am making sure this isn't misunderstood as a
hypocritical heap of close minded views. This is in complete Lynch<and other
Jeff Gower
buttc...@aol.com (Buttclutch) wrote:
> finally after a couple years of absolute non sense and antagonistic
verbiage, I
> think I have snapped.
same mood, if you will....
> What right do people have to say that his movies are
> horrible?
> they compare Lynch's work to films that have been redone and redone
> and scripts that are the same story as every other story on screen.
for a film and then been bored to tears when seeing it myself.
Predictability, rehashed ideas (or complete lack thereof), etc. - just
makes me shake my head in amazement at how DULL some people must be to
watch and ENJOY the same ol' same ol' same ol' same ol' over and over and
over and over again. THEN when some film comes along that challenges them
in ANY way, that does not have a 2nd-grade-level plot narrative, that does
not revolve around some "star" or simplistic cartoonish theme, THEN they
finally seem to muster up enough passion to knee-jerk a criticism that
betrays an utter absence of any thought or willingness to think.
(Haha, and you thought YOU had snapped, Steve!)
> WHY ARE THEY SO CLOSED MINDED AND PATHETIC THAT THEY CAN"T EVEN
> STOP TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE? SOMETHING NEW!!!
> something original ! !
anything in their self-restricted lives, and have absolutely no interest
in exploring anything that might open them up. They have no hobbies that
involve thinking, they have no enthusiasm that is deeper than the
condition of their front lawns, they pursue nothing more noble than a
better golf handicap or their next raise or promotion, and they scoff at
anyone who actually has a passion for anything artistic.
> Film was made for two reasons I believe, 1.) to entertain,
> and 2.) to provide another form of expression, another art.
movies??!! Look here: ya got yer simple and to-the-point plot, ya got yer
fakey romance, ya got yer action scenes, ya got yer neat wrap-it-all-up
ending, ya got yer swelling-violins and tense/release soundtracks - put it
all together and you got yer dang movie!! Anything else added OR
subtracted is a worthless waste of celluloid, ya hear?!
Jeez, what the hell does a movie have to do with some silly-ass thing like
"ART"?
Sorry to be so cynical - but that is basically the close-minded and
actively ANTI-art attitude about film, music, literature, and any other
form of artistic endeavor that carries with it the dual "purpose" of
"entertainment" - and if anything betrays the artistic/spiritual vacuity
of a person, it is their take on this matter, IMSO. People had rather
devote a considerable chunk of their lifetime to after-life-fulfillment
notions (religions, new-ageisms, etc.) than be bothered to spent a modicum
of time on anything artistic.
> thanks for listening while I vented a little anger
entertainment too (I laugh at Jim Carrey and Chris Farley, for god's
sake!, and I love old John Wayne movies), but like you wrote, there is
more to the whole of filmdom than a simple laugh or thrill. Once in a
while there comes a piece of art, and it would be nice if more people,
especially those who should know better, would understand that.
Jeff
Jeff Gower
> I'm sorry to say this, but even Lynch redoes and reworks
> the same stories over and over and over in his own body of work.
Yep, when I saw "Blue Velvet", I thought - "ah, hell, this is just
Eraserhead all over again". Haha. You've gotta be kidding, Alex.
> His films
> aren't as original as you think. Lots of his imagery harks back to the French
> Impressionist/Dadaist and German Expressionist cinema of the 20s.
I'll grant you this one. His imagery and such IS obviously inflenced by
past directors. But his thoughts are completely original and rare, IMO.
You suggested that he might be "running out of ideas" - I think he has an
overall expansive IDEA (singular) that he keeps working with, playing
with, trying to convey in his own way, rather than little ideas here and
there. Just my interp.
>You can't
> condemn people for liking Titanic just because there have been millions
of love
> stories told before in the movies.
True - I liked "Titanic". Silly, frivolous, over-done, whatever you wanna
call it....still, I didn't look at my watch the whole 3hours - I was
thoroughly entertained.
>And the fact is, the majority of people
> just want to get entertained.
> You can't blame them for....not being open to other kinds of cinema.
Yes we can. Entertainment is great - but there is so much more to life
than work and entertainment. I will NEVER buy the notion that it is "OK"
for "the majority of people" to ignore art, even to actively scoff at its
importance. This is the kind of attitude that has resulted in many
schools no longer having such programs. That is a BAD thing, IMO.
Extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded.
> They aren't close minded
Sure they are. "Not being open to other kinds...." = close-minded.
Next....
>They are real people with real jobs and family who just want to relax (I
> think deservedly) and that's absolutely fine.
Sure. But does such a self-restricted lifestyle give these people the
critical authority to blast more noble pursuits as worthless and
bad-taste? (that was Buttclutch's point, BTW) Hey, you wanna go home and
plop on the couch and watch Nick-at-Night reruns or some Schwarzenneger
flick, fine. But have the honesty to acknowledge that JUST PERHAPS there
might be something a tad more challenging and fulfilling out there without
knee-jerk "artsy-fartsy" criticism.
>It's like drinking Bud after a
> grueling week of midterms. You could get better beer, but when you just
want to
> get drunk, you just get drunk. (boy wasthat a week analogy)
Not necessarily a weak analogy, but an incredibly dumb and revealing one
too (see your comments below) Sorry, Alex, but you asked for it. ;-)
> There are hardly any "art" movies made anymore.
Bullshit. Just because they ain't playing at the local 24-screen cineplex
doesn't mean they aren't being made.
>Nothing has
> reached the level of abstraction where you could consider a film as a
work of art
Bullshit. What a ridiculous statement.
Jeesh, I started this response just a bit annoyed - now I'm downright
chapped. Haha.
>I'd hardly
> consider BV or LH as works of art.
That explains it.
> They are just movies that will make some people think about them.
Congratulations - you've just encapsulated these two brilliant films in
one short sentence. It took Roger Ebert two whole freakin' reviews to
come to the same assinine, vacuous conclusions.
> Anyway, just to shed more light.
What light? Did anyone see any light around here? ;-)
Jeff
Alex
Jeff Gower wrote:
> In article <37156279...@columbia.edu>, Alex <aj...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to say this, but even Lynch redoes and reworks
> > the same stories over and over and over in his own body of work.
>
> Yep, when I saw "Blue Velvet", I thought - "ah, hell, this is just
> Eraserhead all over again". Haha. You've gotta be kidding, Alex.
>
Well, you gotta admit that the two-women aspect of BV is present in TP and in LH and
it is always the choices the protagonist makes between these two worlds/women that
carry the story to its end/non-end. So in that respect, LH reworks TP which reworks
BV which reworks Eraserhead (the next-door neighbor mystery woman vs. the angelic
lady in the radiator). Of course, I didn't mean that Eraserhead and BV were the
same thing, but rather that Lynch's basic framework is pretty much the same. All
his films deal with the idea of evil-within-normalcy, the dual-women thing, humor in
the mundane, etc. So if you look at the skeletons of his narratives, they are all
pretty similar.
I disagree. For many middle class households, the only important things in life are
family, work, and leisure. I don't think you understand how priviledged those
people are who have both the money and time to contemplate about the aesthetics of
film or literature. Art is good for society no doubt, but whose society are we
talking about? Are we talking about people like you or I who obviously have the
time and money to care about art or the people who have to work their asses off to
keep our country running as smoothly as possible and to keep our lives as
comfortable as possible? I'll forgive them for not caring about art. The majority,
the middle class, does not deserve to be ridiculed for not giving a shit They've
got enough responsibilites as is. Maybe you don't realize that. I know there's much
more to life than just work and entertainment. And I don't think people ignore art
or scoff at it. I remember when LH came out and it got panned by a ton of respected
critics. People are entitled to whatever they want to say. And if you think having
an opinion is scoffing, then I don't know what to say. In addition, if people do
ignore movies that aren't "mainstream" it's their loss, right? But it's not a very
big one.
> > They aren't close minded
>
> Sure they are. "Not being open to other kinds...." = close-minded.
> Next....
>
I disagree again. Most people are open to other kinds of stuff, they just don't
like it. I dragged my suitemate from Idaho to see Matt Barney's Cremaster 5. It's
a weird film and he didn't like it. He was open to it and he's from Idaho for
crying out loud! Just because people aren't raving over works you consider
masterpieces doesn't mean that they haven't thought about it. And again, if you
feel that people aren't being open minded, then you haven't done enough to encourage
a broader perspective. Of course it ultimately comes down to the individual, but a
little encouragement can't hurt.
> >They are real people with real jobs and family who just want to relax (I
> > think deservedly) and that's absolutely fine.
>
> Sure. But does such a self-restricted lifestyle give these people the
> critical authority to blast more noble pursuits as worthless and
> bad-taste? (that was Buttclutch's point, BTW)
I don't understand where you get this notion that people are just blasting noble
pursuits as worthless! If someone calls BV shit without ever having seen it, then I
understand your point. But, generally, I tend to ignore such ignorami (sic?).
Sticks and stones may break my bones...
> Hey, you wanna go home and
> plop on the couch and watch Nick-at-Night reruns or some Schwarzenneger
> flick, fine. But have the honesty to acknowledge that JUST PERHAPS there
> might be something a tad more challenging and fulfilling out there without
> knee-jerk "artsy-fartsy" criticism.
>
I'm sure people acknolwedge that fact repeatedly, but choose not to go that route
for mainly, the reason that it won't entertain. I know that people should value
art/thinking/brain-activity over ga-ga/entertainment, but it requires too much
effort and this is a sad fact I know, but I understand why some feel this way. I
enjoyed going to see Days of Heaven last week, but it took a lot out of me to fully
appreciate it. For the average person, time is much too valuable for the
post-viewing thinking that is required of good films. People have to work. people
have to take care of the kids. Peopl have to have sex. Art is secondary to most
people and I'm at ease with this because these same people are probably happier to
live their lives in such a way.
> >It's like drinking Bud after a
> > grueling week of midterms. You could get better beer, but when you just
> want to
> > get drunk, you just get drunk. (boy wasthat a week analogy)
>
> Not necessarily a weak analogy, but an incredibly dumb and revealing one
> too (see your comments below) Sorry, Alex, but you asked for it. ;-)
>
> > There are hardly any "art" movies made anymore.
>
> Bullshit. Just because they ain't playing at the local 24-screen cineplex
> doesn't mean they aren't being made.
>
> Name one movie that you've seen of late that you consider art. I see more movies
> a week than I should, and I haven't seen a movie that comes close to being art.
> Even the movies playing at the Film Forum or Lincoln Plaza or Anthology (except
> the avant-garde films of Brakhage, Gehr, etc-->they make art in the truest sense I
> think) are just flicks. Sure, they make you think and remain with you after the
> show's over, but do these qualities qualify something as being art? I don't think
> so.
> >Nothing has
> > reached the level of abstraction where you could consider a film as a
> work of art
>
> Bullshit. What a ridiculous statement.
>
Again, name me a film. LH and BV have moments of abstraction, where the text gets
abstracted to convey deeper meaning, but overall, they're still movies that often
dip into the deep pools of banality, cliche, convention. These films don't
consistently transcend the image/surface whereas art often does. (i.e.
Michelangelo's David, Picasso's Guernica, joyce's Ulysses (it's a lot harder to talk
about books as being art, for reasons I'll get into if you're interested)) If you
take a look at one of Ernie Gehr's movies, the whole length of captured reality gets
abstracted to the point where the text no longer signifies its signified. For me,
when the text transcends its signifiers, it then becomes art.
> Jeesh, I started this response just a bit annoyed - now I'm downright
> chapped. Haha.
>
> >I'd hardly
> > consider BV or LH as works of art.
>
> That explains it.
>
> > They are just movies that will make some people think about them.
>
> Congratulations - you've just encapsulated these two brilliant films in
> one short sentence. It took Roger Ebert two whole freakin' reviews to
> come to the same assinine, vacuous conclusions.
>
Hey, they are still not works of art. BV and LH are great movies and if I didn't
think that, I wouldn't be on this newsgroup and I wouldn't have decorated my dorm
room with still shots from BV, te LH poster, and a rare Eraserhead poster that I
managed to pick up for 30 bucks. So I could of course get into what these films may
be about, but for the sake of space, I simply summarized that they make people
think. There's a difference between great films and art. Too often, people
interchange these notions without really considering what art is. And for me, BV
and LH are great films, but not art. If you want to know more about film as art,
you should check out James Monaco's How to Read a Film. I'm reading it for my film
class and it helps clear up the distinction.
> > Anyway, just to shed more light.
>
> What light? Did anyone see any light around here? ;-)
Just offering the other side of the argument. Maybe that's not light. It's easy to
rant and rave, but difficult to say something unfortunately true about the way
things are.
regards,
Alex
Battlecat
I'd just like to say that the film was just ridiculously bad. The whole
love story element was pathetic, with Cameron only letting you have insight
into the plight of the richest bastards on the ship. Thats no way to make a
disaster movies . A large number of characters who are completely detached
and from different backgrounds, should be focussed on.
The only vaguely enjoyment I gained was from the few factual parts (VERY
VERY few) about the actual sinking.
But for Christs sake, why was Belfast never mentioned? We did build the
bastard.
The ship was called the Titanic. Not simply Titanic. And YES, there IS a
difference.
No offence to any Americans, but you have a knack for forgetting prefixes.
I bring to your attention the World Cup of 1994. Quote "Welcome to
World-Cup 94!"
AND, the captain DID NOT do that. He did go down with the ship, but didn't
wait by himself for the windows to cave in......
God, I hate that film.
I hate even more that it may be the film our generation will be remembered
for.
Roll on Star Wars: Episode One.
Sorry....
Just realised this post wasn't much to do with Lynch......
Dog Bomb Web Site: www.dogbomb.freeserve.co.uk
Cartoon Exchange: www.snakemountain.freeserve.co.uk/cartoons.htm
"Love is for the weak
Or so you'd have me believe"
Cygnet74
(Jeff Gower) wrote:
> In article <37156279...@columbia.edu>, Alex <aj...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to say this, but even Lynch redoes and reworks
> > the same stories over and over and over in his own body of work.
>
> Yep, when I saw "Blue Velvet", I thought - "ah, hell, this is just
> Eraserhead all over again". Haha. You've gotta be kidding, Alex.
>
> > His films
> > aren't as original as you think. Lots of his imagery harks back to
the French
> > Impressionist/Dadaist and German Expressionist cinema of the 20s.
>
> I'll grant you this one. His imagery and such IS obviously inflenced by
> past directors. But his thoughts are completely original and rare, IMO.
> You suggested that he might be "running out of ideas" - I think he has an
> overall expansive IDEA (singular) that he keeps working with, playing
> with, trying to convey in his own way, rather than little ideas here and
> there. Just my interp.
Didn't you just say, "You've gotta be kidding, Alex" in regard to Lynch's
reworking of his work?
> >You can't
> > condemn people for liking Titanic just because there have been millions
> of love
> > stories told before in the movies.
>
> True - I liked "Titanic". Silly, frivolous, over-done, whatever you wanna
> call it....still, I didn't look at my watch the whole 3hours - I was
> thoroughly entertained.
>
> >And the fact is, the majority of people
> > just want to get entertained.
> > You can't blame them for....not being open to other kinds of cinema.
>
> Yes we can. Entertainment is great - but there is so much more to life
> than work and entertainment. I will NEVER buy the notion that it is "OK"
> for "the majority of people" to ignore art, even to actively scoff at its
> importance.
They don't ignore or scoff at art. It's just that their art and your art
aren't always the same art. (ouch, I bit my tongue in there somewhere) I
would suggest that their art is more abstract, more emotional and thus,
more human. Call it entertainment, but what it really is, is finding
something to identify with.
> This is the kind of attitude that has resulted in many
> schools no longer having such programs. That is a BAD thing, IMO.
> Extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded.
>
> > They aren't close minded
>
> Sure they are. "Not being open to other kinds...." = close-minded.
> Next....
Actually, close-minded means "bigoted, partial, or prejudiced" which
suggests that they would need to actively avoid analyzing the abstract.
The majority isn't doing this. Instead of prcessing the information
through words like "symbolic" or "juxtapose" or "reflexive", they process
the experience through themselves. They actively pursue a connection to
these new experiences by filtering it through experiences of their own...
whether it be finding themselves in a whirlwind romance on the Titanic,
proving to the world that ordinary guys, like us, can save the world from
Armageddon, or any other conventions of the narrative form. Now granted,
it's often the spectacle or the event that draws in your mass audience,
but it's their ability to connect with the story that satisfies them. How
many of the regualr crowd could say they have something in common with
Fred Madison? Very few. Personally, I loved Lost Highway, not because I
connected to the story. How many of us could? But because I became
transfixed with trying to figure out the riddle. But see, this
intellectual half of art isn't any more or less valid than its emotional
counterpart. Give me films like Wild at Heart or the Twin Peaks Series
which have the potential to satisfy both sides and I'm in heaven.
Which leads me to the next idea: perhaps it is the artists who hold the
responsiblitity, not the audience. If you want to expose the mass public
to movies that are "good for them", you need to sugar coat it... as
Shakespeare did. Films such as Lost Highway or FWWM which expect an
analytical mindset from the viewer, makes your casual movie-goer feel
alienated and ultimately short-changed. Why? Because they went to the
movies to project themselves onto the screen, to find a little bit of
themselves--their own emotions, or anything they could relate to, up there
on the screen. If this is what they are searching for, whether they know
it or not, can you really expect any other reaction than, "what the fuck
is this?" to something like Lost Highway? Or worse, Eraserhead? These
films have a cult following because they aren't made to appeal to most
people, they're made for the select few of us who either find an
analytical value in the film, or are one of the few that can identify with
the story. How many people can identify with the story of Henry Spencer?
Some, I'm sure, but not many.
> >They are real people with real jobs and family who just want to relax (I
> > think deservedly) and that's absolutely fine.
>
> Sure. But does such a self-restricted lifestyle give these people the
> critical authority to blast more noble pursuits as worthless and
> bad-taste? (that was Buttclutch's point, BTW) Hey, you wanna go home and
> plop on the couch and watch Nick-at-Night reruns or some Schwarzenneger
> flick, fine. But have the honesty to acknowledge that JUST PERHAPS there
> might be something a tad more challenging and fulfilling out there without
> knee-jerk "artsy-fartsy" criticism.
But you see, what they call "artsy-fartsy" is what someone else might call
"mindless entertainment". They're both a metaphor for "what I don't
relate to". Some find satisfaction in analyzing the "artsy-fartsy" while
other are satisfied by dissappearing into the "mindless entertainment" of
a new world.
> >It's like drinking Bud after a
> > grueling week of midterms. You could get better beer, but when you just
> want to
> > get drunk, you just get drunk. (boy wasthat a week analogy)
>
> Not necessarily a weak analogy, but an incredibly dumb and revealing one
> too (see your comments below) Sorry, Alex, but you asked for it. ;-)
It's the perfect analogy, actually. When the mass public wants to go out
to a movie--it could be Titanic, it could be Armageddon, it could be Lost
Highway for some--they don't care about the "textures" of the film, they
just want it to do its job which is to get them drunk, er, let them
identify with it, relate to it, laugh with it, cry with it, hate it, or
fall in love with it. This is why the same story conventions work over
and over. As long as they are well executed, the romances, the comedies
and the stories about heroes will remain the staples of narrative
storytelling for as long as we are here.
> > There are hardly any "art" movies made anymore.
>
> Bullshit. Just because they ain't playing at the local 24-screen cineplex
> doesn't mean they aren't being made.
> >Nothing has
> > reached the level of abstraction where you could consider a film as a
> work of art
>
> Bullshit. What a ridiculous statement.
>
> Jeesh, I started this response just a bit annoyed - now I'm downright
> chapped. Haha.
>
>
> >I'd hardly
> > consider BV or LH as works of art.
>
> That explains it.
>
Art is too subjective a word to pin to any particular group of films.
While there is a definite art to BV's and LH's respective compositions,
expressions of ideas, manipulation of images, symbolism, et cetera, there
is also the art of story, characters, motivation, emotion, growth and/or
learning, which is the more definitive of the two. Because if LH or BV
were completely (I mean, 100%) lacking the second half, would you still
like them? You may not know what it's like to literally change into
someone else, but you know what it's like to have your privacy invaded,
don't you? You know what it's like not to trust someone, or to be
perplexed by the improbable, right? I'll bet you've even had an
experience where you had to change who you were, or take on new character
traits, to get through a hard situation. I have. So, I guess there are
some small things in Lost Highway to relate to, afterall.
> > They are just movies that will make some people think about them.
>
> Congratulations - you've just encapsulated these two brilliant films in
> one short sentence. It took Roger Ebert two whole freakin' reviews to
> come to the same assinine, vacuous conclusions.
>
> > Anyway, just to shed more light.
>
> What light? Did anyone see any light around here? ;-)
>
> Jeff
One day, I was at lunch with some friends and Lost Highway came up.
Needless to say, they all felt the same way--they liked it until it got
"weird". Which translates to, "they liked it until they couldn't identify
with it anymore". When I tried to explain the analytical side of
it--about it all being from the perspective of Fred Madison's deranged
mind as he experiences a series of psychogenic fugues--they all agreed
that this was very interesting, but wanted to know why this wasn't made
clear in the film. I said, "well that's the way David Lynch works. He
likes his audiences to come away with their own interpretation." At this
point it became painfully clear that "interpreting" the story is not what
they wanted from a film. They wanted the damn story! They didn't want to
figure out how the story could be possible, they wanted to live it,
experience it, to be inside it. Once it traversed down unidentifiable
territory, they were alienated with nothing else in the film to cling to
or project themselves onto. All they were left with was all the "weird"
stuff.
Zak
Jeff Gower
>....Lynch's basic framework is pretty much the same. All
> his films deal with the idea of evil-within-normalcy, the dual-women
thing, humor in
> the mundane, etc.
I agree with you, Alex, that he works with a central grand idea (like I
mentioned before), but it is the various approaches and angles he uses
that makes it so interesting - not the same ol' same ol' that we were
talking about w/r/to very formulaic movies.
As far as the notion that people just don't have the time, energy, money,
etc. to explore the arts... Sure, there are some who truly don't. But
most do. MOST do. They just choose not to. The entertainment and
related industries are the biggest and fastest growing industries out
there - people spend an incredible amount of time, money, and energy on
entertainment. 24-screen theaters, video-rental shops, bookstore
warehouses, CD warehouses, mega-shopping-malls, even this hugely-growing
internet thing - these are all for the peoples' insatiable entertainment
wants, and these are all growing. Lack of time, money, and energy is not
the problem (if you want to call it a problem at all, that is - haha) -
instead, it is a lack of interest and willingness to invest that time and
money and energy more deliberately and selectively, with a focus on
learning and artistic fulfillment rather than just pure entertainment all
the time. Attention spans and willingness to contemplate - these are
growing ever smaller. That is the real reason, not some "rare luxury of
time and money".
> I don't understand where you get this notion that people are just
blasting noble
> pursuits as worthless!
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, tastes, lives, time, money,
etc.. Fine. But how many times have you heard someone write off an
enthusiasm over something artistic (great music, poetry, art, film, etc.)
as being "artsy-fartsy", geeky, high-brow, boring, wimpy, prissy, etc.?
How many times have you heard someone who literally has NO interests to
speak of tell someone else that they should "get a life" because they are
passionate about something out-of-the-mainstream artistic? Usually the
people who snicker at the idea of reading Whitman or Mallarme' are the
very same people that have less than 10 books in their homes (and half of
which they haven't even colored yet - haha, sorry for the "humor", or weak
attempt thereat).
But actions speak louder than words. In USA, jazz (the music of this
country) accounts for about 2-3% of music recordings sold - classical is a
% or two higher but still no more than 5%. There is not one 24-hour jazz
radio station here (there used to be one in SF - perhaps still so?). Out
of 80 cable stations in North Florida, not one is devoted to the arts. I
could go on and on - things like these point to the suggested
"unworthiness" of artistic pursuits in most peoples' minds.
> I
> enjoyed going to see Days of Heaven last week, but it took a lot out of
me to fully
> appreciate it.
But aren't you glad you did?
My whole stance is based upon my own experiences, of course, and therefore
is to be taken as such. But, get this: when I first saw "Blue Velvet", I
thought it was offensive worthless crap. I was wrong. When I first read
poetry, I thought it was mamby-pamby BS. I was dead wrong. When I first
heard the music of Delius, I thought it was 2nd-rate Debussy - I was DEAD
wrong. When I first saw a Munch painting, I thought it was childish - I
was DEAD wrong.
In each of these (and many other) cases, I forced myself to re-evaluate
and invest some extra time and effort to understand these things. Do I
regret it? No way! My life is infinitely richer for the time and effort
expended. I could easily have just moved on and not given this stuff a
second chance - I could have chosen to spend little bits of time with many
things rather than a larger chunk of time on fewer things. But I know now
what I would have missed. This is my whole point. Some things require a
bit more than passing observation, but the rewards of a second or third
look pay off tremendously!
> > Name one movie that you've seen of late that you consider art.
Well, if you don't consider BV and LH as art, then we may just have to
agree to disagree on what consitutes art in a film. I think that MOST
films are somewhat artistic, except for the many intentionally formulaic
films that are often blockbusters. At any rate, a few of the more recent
artistic films I have seen lately are (off the top of my head):
"Pi", "Sunday", "The End of Violence", "Buffalo 66", "Zero Kelvin",
"Gummo" - these are what I would consider artistic movies - I didn't like
some of them (I didn't care for "Buffalo 66" and "Gummo" especially)
but....
>I haven't seen a movie that comes close to being art.
I guess you'd have to explain what you think art in a film is. I dont'
think a film has to be avant garde to be artistic.
> Sure, they make you think and remain with you after the
> > show's over, but do these qualities qualify something as being art? I
don't think
> > so.
I DO think so. I think that is the whole point of art - to spur thought
and to express beauty or ideas in interesting ways. When you leave a film
and end up thinking about it for days, that is what an artistic film is
all about, I think.
> LH and BV have moments of abstraction, where the text gets
> abstracted to convey deeper meaning, but overall, they're still movies
that often
> dip into the deep pools of banality, cliche, convention. These films don't
> consistently transcend the image/surface whereas art often does.
You really think so? I think they are anything BUT banal and cliche. Oh well.
> take a look at one of Ernie Gehr's movies, the whole length of captured
reality gets
> abstracted to the point where the text no longer signifies its
signified. For me,
> when the text transcends its signifiers, it then becomes art.
Thanks for the recommenation - I will have to check out Gehr's movies.
>There's a difference between great films and art. Too often, people
> interchange these notions without really considering what art is.
Is a great symphony not art? Is a great poem not art? I am sorry, Alex,
I just don't understand - but I AM interested.
>If you want to know more about film as art,
> you should check out James Monaco's How to Read a Film.
Thanks - I will do so.
Jeff
Matt
Two quick points: First, they did mention the fact that Titanic was
built in Belfast. Second, I am pretty sure that it IS "Titanic" sans
article.
--
-Mr. Marquis
Jeff Gower
cygn...@xoommail.com (Cygnet74) wrote:
> Didn't you just say, "You've gotta be kidding, Alex" in regard to Lynch's
> reworking of his work?
Here is what Alex wrote:
> > > I'm sorry to say this, but even Lynch redoes and reworks
> > > the same stories over and over and over in his own body of work.
What I responded was that I believed Lynch expounds repeatedly on a
central idea (or group of related ideas), but from many different
approaches and angles (i.e., stories) - I said nothing about his using the
same stories over and over. I think that is false.
> They don't ignore or scoff at art. It's just that their art and your art
> aren't always the same art. (ouch, I bit my tongue in there somewhere) I
> would suggest that their art is more abstract, more emotional and thus,
> more human. Call it entertainment, but what it really is, is finding
> something to identify with.
While I disagree about people not ignoring or scoffing at art - I think
most people do; even if their words don't show it, their actions do - I
think your last sentence is right on the mark. Identity or "connection"
is indeed a very big factor in INITIAL attraction to a film or other work
of art.
> Which leads me to the next idea: perhaps it is the artists who hold the
> responsiblitity, not the audience. If you want to expose the mass public
> to movies that are "good for them", you need to sugar coat it... as
> Shakespeare did.
I agree that a truly GREAT artist possesses not only the genius for
expression, but also the genius for accessible expression. But I don't
agree with the notion of any artistic "responsibility" towards the
audience. There is an awful lot of art that is tough-going at first, but
rewards greatly if given the effort.
> Films such as Lost Highway or FWWM which expect an
> analytical mindset from the viewer, makes your casual movie-goer feel
> alienated and ultimately short-changed. Why? Because they went to the
> movies to project themselves onto the screen, to find a little bit of
> themselves--their own emotions, or anything they could relate to, up there
> on the screen. If this is what they are searching for, whether they know
> it or not, can you really expect any other reaction than, "what the fuck
> is this?" to something like Lost Highway? Or worse, Eraserhead? These
> films have a cult following because they aren't made to appeal to most
> people, they're made for the select few of us who either find an
> analytical value in the film, or are one of the few that can identify with
> the story. How many people can identify with the story of Henry Spencer?
> Some, I'm sure, but not many.
Valid points, all. I connected immediately with LH and Eraserhead - not
from direct sympathetic experience, of course (I never killed my wife,
etc., haha), but there were vibes there that moved me personally from the
start. So I was much more open to exploring the "analytical" side of
these films than if I'd never connected with them in the first place.
Good point.
HOWEVER, there have been times that I have watched a film, and it did
nothing for me initially (like Blue Velvet, in my case) but with a bit
more effort it became a totally different matter. So my only gripe is the
knee-jerk response of someone who fails to connect with something in
passing, and who vocalizes it (as does many so-called authorities).
> Some find satisfaction in analyzing the "artsy-fartsy" while
> other are satisfied by dissappearing into the "mindless entertainment" of
> a new world.
What is wrong with enjoying BOTH experiences? It is possible to enjoy
both Grand Funk Railroad AND Johann Sebastian Bach without brushing one
off as either "artsy-fartsy" or "rock garbage".
> It's the perfect analogy, actually. When the mass public wants to go out
> to a movie--it could be Titanic, it could be Armageddon, it could be Lost
> Highway for some--they don't care about the "textures" of the film, they
> just want it to do its job which is to get them drunk, er, let them
> identify with it, relate to it, laugh with it, cry with it, hate it, or
> fall in love with it. This is why the same story conventions work over
> and over. As long as they are well executed, the romances, the comedies
> and the stories about heroes will remain the staples of narrative
> storytelling for as long as we are here.
I agree. But why not every once in a while try to THINK about something
if it turns out to not be so conventional and predictable, rather than
throwing up the hands and giving up immediately?
> One day, I was at lunch with some friends and Lost Highway came up.
> Needless to say, they all felt the same way--they liked it until it got
> "weird". Which translates to, "they liked it until they couldn't identify
> with it anymore".....it became painfully clear that "interpreting" the
> story is not what they wanted from a film. They wanted the damn story!
That is fine, but it is also laziness. So, they are saying that as long
as they are being led like a child through a predictable and linear
narrative, all is fine - but a little twist and turn and inversion, etc.,
and dangummit! they are angry and helplessly dangling and incapable of
finding their way home.....poor poor souls.
Haha.
Oh well, to each his own.
Jeff
Buttclutch
those who have to rant about it and always discard everything they don't get as
TRASH and make sure to tell everyone about it, well, those are the ones that
make me think twice about fascist america and how GREAT it is. but I know the
whole concept you speak of, I believe its called selling out, adn the people
that do I am so glad aren't exposed to this work. becasue I would hat eto see
it become changed for corporate america
Cygnet74
(Jeff Gower) wrote:
Didn't bother responding to all the other mess because we seem to agree on
just about everything. The exception being this last bit. The problem
with Lost Highway is that after investing themselves into the characters
for the story's First Act, the climax of that act is nearly a complete new
story. The audience isn't given enough information at any point in the
film to understand what is happening, so how can they be expected to "find
their way home"? Let's put in a nother context... Police Academy 4 does
the same thing. Act One, intro the troubled youths and climax the act
with their enrollment into the Academy's 'Cops On Patrol' program. This
pushes the story into Act Two which should be about the two boys because
Act One suggests this is their story. Instead, we get an hour of 'Police
Academy' vignettes in which the troubled youths are featured maybe a total
of fifteen minutes. And worse, the jump from vignette to vignette isn't
motivated by any of the characters' actions and the whole thing feels like
a series of situation comedies. This is a definitive example of episodic
storytelling. Certainly, LH has more to offer than PA4, but they both
break the narrative. If, in Lost Highway, we were given one clue that was
just a tad more obvious about what was happening, I don't think as many
people would have felt like they were pulled right out of the story. I
was one of the lucky ones. I happened to be researching this phenonmena
(psychogenic fugue) for a screenplay I wrote at the time of LH's release.
Otherwise, it would almost certainly have taken repeat viewings to get a
hold on the material. And who knows if I would have ever recovered? I
think Police Academy 4 is a piece of shit, but maybe I just need to delve
deeper into the material before I can realize what a remarkable effort it
was.
Zak
Alex
you really mean to call America fascist, because that's a huge statement to make
and words should not be taken lightly. Just keep that in mind, buttclutch.
regards,
Alex
Jeff Gower
<cygnet74-160...@pool103-cvx.ds68-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>,
cygn...@xoommail.com (Cygnet74) wrote:
> The problem
> with Lost Highway is that after investing themselves into the characters
> for the story's First Act, the climax of that act is nearly a complete new
> story.
I personally didn't see this as a "problem" the first time I saw LH -
instead, I thought it was a fascinating twist and I was immediately
compelled to try to "get it", badly enough to make me see it again before
I finally began to see what was happening. I don't see this as a
"problem" with LH, but as a brilliantly compelling quality of the movie.
The only "problem", if there is one at all, is with a viewer that
immediately throws up the hands, gives up, and denounces the film as
crap. But to each his own, I guess.
> The audience isn't given enough information at any point in the
> film to understand what is happening....
Actually, I think there are fairly obvious clues throughout the film.
Granted, the information given is subtle and requires a second or third
viewing to piece together. But this is NOT that difficult of a film to
"get", I don't think - and I am a relatively simplistic buffoon even!
> Certainly, LH has more to offer than PA4, but they both
> break the narrative.
I think the narrative in LH is twisted and perhaps inverted somewhat, but
not completely broken. But forgive me - this is just semantics, I know -
I get your point.
> If, in Lost Highway, we were given one clue that was
> just a tad more obvious about what was happening, I don't think as many
> people would have felt like they were pulled right out of the story.
True. But I don't think LH-enthusiasts would have loved it so much in
that case, either. Part of its appeal is its magnetic elusiveness.
Instead of feeling "pulled out of the story", I can't imagine not being
pulled into the mystery of it all. But that is just me, I guess.
> I happened to be researching this phenonmena
> (psychogenic fugue) for a screenplay I wrote at the time of LH's release.
Wow - I bet you were psyched to see this movie at that coincidental time,
eh? I'd like to read your screenplay sometime, Zak. Do you have any
plans/offers to have it produced?
> I
> think Police Academy 4 is a piece of shit, but maybe I just need to delve
> deeper into the material before I can realize what a remarkable effort it
> was.
Haha! Touche!
;-)
Jeff