Who likes David Lynch? Raise your hands please...
Teo Ee Ming
Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
Highway. Any thoughts?
Teo Ee Ming
Rod Ramsey
In article <34ae546...@news.ping.be>, baudoui...@ping.be says...
> Too bad there is no AML... (yet ?)
Actually, it's "alt.movies.david-lynch"...It's. on my server...and the Twin
Peaks group serves a similar crowd..
Rod
Frank Grimes
I think he's great, Twin Peaks was an excellent show and Eraserhead gets
better everytime I think about it
Frank Grimes
Baudouin Petit wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jan 1998 19:58:19 +0800, "Teo Ee Ming"
> <cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote:
>
> >Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> >love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> >Highway. Any thoughts?
> >
> >Teo Ee Ming
> >
> >
>
> mention (but for me Elephant Man is one of the best movies of the
> 80's).
>
> Too bad there is no AML... (yet ?)
>
>
>
There is
Roger Deforest
Teo Ee Ming wrote:
>
> Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> Highway. Any thoughts?
>
Blue Velvet is the bomb.
--
Roger Deforest
rd...@netwiz.net
RAYMBEN
><cybe...@cyberway.com.sg> wrote--
>Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
>love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
>Highway. Any thoughts?
>
He's great. Especially "Blue Velvet" and "Twin Peaks" (the series). There is
an alt.tv.twin-peaks newsgroup which covers everything Lynchian.
Btw-- I read in a recent Lynch bio that Stanley Kubrick's favorite film circa
1978 was "Eraserhead."
--Raymond
Josh Martin
Teo Ee Ming wrote:
>
> Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> Highway. Any thoughts?
The only film of his I liked was The Elephant Man, although I admittedly
have not yet seen Eraserhead.
Josh
Ronald J. Whalen
MrNatural1 wrote:
>
> >>Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> >>love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> >>Highway. Any thoughts?
> >>
>
David Lynch is definitely in my top list of great directors. His tv
shows "Twin Peaks" set the standard for modern-day tv horror shows like
The X-Files and his films such as Dune, and The Elephant Man are both
the most beautifully photographed films I have ever seen. He has made a
bad film, the miserable
Twin Peaks:Fire Walk With Me movie which I found a pointless
self-indulgent show that went nowhere (it was as if Lynch had forgotten
about everything that made Twin Peaks, such a great show). His last
movie, Lost Highway was better,
one of 1997's best screenplays and while a little boring at time, it
truly is
more challenging than any other movie I've seen in the 90's in that it
makes you think and it's a film I think Kubrick could have made. Robert
Blake
was great as the Mystery Man-one of the most recent memorable characters
in movies that I can remember.
Ronie J Whalen
MrNatural1
>>Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
>>love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
>>Highway. Any thoughts?
>>
Lynch is definitely one of my favorite directors. All his films (of the ones
I've seen) I've loved. Blue Velvet is my personal favorite.
-Max
QBRICK15
I am a David Lynch fan. "Blue Velvet" and "Eraserhead" are both very strong.
One of my favorite scenes is when he is having dinner at the girlfriend's house
in "Eraserhead". Classic Lynch.
I saw him on Letterman a couple of years ago and the crowd didn't know what to
make of him. He came out with his insect collection and began naming off his
bugs. Letterman's response..."Uh huh."
Q
Teo Ee Ming
Teo Ee Ming wrote in message <34ae23f8.0@cwaix>...
>Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
>love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
>Highway. Any thoughts?
>
>Teo Ee Ming
>
>
One more thing I would like to add: What did Kubrick think of Eraserhead? I
read that it was his favourite at that time and he was figuring out how
Lynch
did the baby effects for the film.
Dan Fineberg
Josh Martin wrote:
>
> Teo Ee Ming wrote:
> >
> > Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> > love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> > Highway. Any thoughts?
>
> have not yet seen Eraserhead.
>
> Josh
I agree completely, though I've been meaning to see Eraserhead. The
Elephant Man, in my opinion was his last and only good film. Lynch would
be a wonderful director if he didn't direct such drek. The films are
confusing, inconsistent and boring. Interesting camera angles and weird
characters aren't nearly enough to sustain my interest for five minutes,
let alone two hours. I really wish he'd take his filmography in a
different direction and stay away from the weird shit.
DF
MAILER...@grin.net
Teo Ee Ming wrote:
>
> Teo Ee Ming wrote in message <34ae23f8.0@cwaix>...
> >Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
> >love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
> >Highway. Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
>
> One more thing I would like to add: What did Kubrick think of Eraserhead? I
> read that it was his favourite at that time and he was figuring out how
> Lynch
> did the baby effects for the film.
I've heard of this too. John Waters popularized the film among his cult
following and Kubrick popularized it among Hollywood insiders and, of
course, Mel Brooks got him his Elephant Man gig.
danuta deeb
Lost Highway is certainly on my top ten list of movies from last year.
David Mullen
>> >Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
>> >love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
>> >Highway
A friend and I were talking about "Erasehead" the other day. We both noticed
that it was a film that both of us saw once about 15 years ago and yet can
remember almost all of the dialogue and most of the shots. Talk about leaving
an impression. I think it is a great film, yet I have little impulse to watch
it regularly.
David M.
jack helton
danuta deeb wrote:
>
> Lost Highway is certainly on my top ten list of movies from last year.
Lynch is a full of hot air. He is not on the same level as Kubrick,
Coppala, Lucas, or Terry Gillian.
Lynch puts out boring films(my opinion of course)
Perky Pat
>Twin Peaks:Fire Walk With Me movie which I found a pointless
>self-indulgent show that went nowhere (it was as if Lynch had forgotten
>about everything that made Twin Peaks, such a great show).
I really liked this one...I admit it's fractured (DIRECTOR'S CUT NEEDED--Hey
Lynch!!!)...but there are so many amazing scenes and Sheryl Lee was
completely credible and intense throughout...strangely enuff, I find myself
going back and watching this more than any other of his films (although Blue
Velvet is also very cool on the repeated viewing thang!)...
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> Lynch is a full of hot air. He is not on the same level as Kubrick,
> Coppala, Lucas, or Terry Gillian.
First of all Terry Gillian was heavily influenced by Lynch, so it's
hardly fair to condemn the man whose Eraserhead imagery was so blatantly
ripped-off in Brazil. As for Lynch not being on the same level as Lucas
and Coppola, you're certainly right. HE'S A LOT BETTER!! Let's face it,
neither Lucas nor Coppola has directed a decent movie since disco. And
the stuff they did direct even then was pretty one-dimensional (with the
exceptions of THX-1138 and Apocalypse Now). And, finally, with regards to
Kubrick , it's hardly fair to hold everyone to THAT standard. Rejecting
directors because they're not a skilled as Kubrick is like rejecting Bach
because he's not as good as Mozart.
Lynch and Kubrick are two of a kind in so many ways. Both are film
artists in the classical sense of the term (Lynch actually studied art
before he went into film and began his film work as an extension of his
work in sculpture). And both produce films with very similar tones and
depth. Though Lynch concentrates more on heavy symbolism and Kubrick
concentrates more on larger metaphors, both directors infuse their films
with a literary depth that is almost unprecedented in commercial cinema.
Twin Peaks, for example, was easily the most complex television show ever
made, and it's heavy use of symbolism and metaphor went well over the
heads of the vast majority of its viewing audience. So, inevitably,
people are going to call Lynch "boring," just as they called 2001
"boring" and "slow." It's an unfortunate reality that most people just
don't "get" truly artistic cinema.
-Eric
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Gordon Dahlquist
It struck me a very successful straightforward film - an expressionistic
tale of incest, what else would it be but a kind of psychotic nightmare?
Cheryl Lee and ray wise were both superb ... it's an ugly, uncomfortable
film, but given what it's about, it rather has to be.
Zachary Isaac Ralston
I guess Wild at Heart and Lost Highway both have some interesting elements
to them (I really like the scene in W at H when Lara Flynn Boyle is by the
side of the road bleeding from a head injury in a car crash and looking
for her purse), but overall, I think Lynch is overrated.
The big problem is that people mistake obscurity and quirkiness for
artistic flourish. Blue Velvet is a crude and insulting mistake of a film,
with a terrible mysoginist streak and a penchant for underdeveloping
characters. There is so little underneath the colorful surface that
Lynch's films suffer from both overkill and underkill at the same time.
You can put meaning into a film by overloading it with meaningless images.
I am reminded of a great "Simpson's" rip on Lynch, where homer is watching
Twin Peaks. They cut to the TV and there is a man dancing with a sheep,
underneath a traffic light dangling from a tree. Homer says "I have no
idea what's going on, but it's brilliant."
See, even Lynch doesn't know what his films are about, but moreover, he
doesn't care. Lost Highway, though entertaining in the first half, has no
actual goal, and Lynch doesn't care. He wants to take you on a ride. If
you enjoy the ride, great. But claims that he is a deep or talented
director are suspect at best. I offer Dune as evidence.
-zach
Dan Fineberg
Bilge Ebiri wrote:
>
> Zachary Isaac Ralston <zral...@umsis.miami.edu> wrote:
> >
>
> >I am reminded of a great "Simpson's" rip on Lynch, where homer is watching
> >Twin Peaks. They cut to the TV and there is a man dancing with a sheep,
> >underneath a traffic light dangling from a tree. Homer says "I have no
> >idea what's going on, but it's brilliant."
> >
> >See, even Lynch doesn't know what his films are about, but moreover, he
> >doesn't care.
>
> are about." I'm personally not the biggest David Lynch fan here, but
> this is just not proof of anything.
>
> I have to say, Lynch has the ability to create and sustain a serious
> atmosphere of unease, which more than makes up for his shortcomings as a
> screenwriter. I find his films ultimately empty and not exactly worthy
> of intense thought (exc. perhaps THE ELEPHANT MAN), but they are
> >definitely< worlds of their own -- this is a quality that so few filmmakers today share that I have to look forward to Lynch's films, despite the fact that I despise so much of the hype that surrounds them. He's a director who does certain things so well that I'll overlook his serious failings for sustained stretches of time.
Creating an world of your own on film doesn't constitute a good film,
actually it doesn't even constitute an okay film in my book. I think the
look of the picture is nothing without something to back it up, which
Lynch simply doesn't offer. He operates under the assumption that if you
don't understand it, you can't knock it, so it must be good, and I fell
for it a couple of times until I realized he was doing the same thing
with each of his pictures. His films are like those model houses at
Universal Studios that look real on the outside, but when the tram takes
you around, there's nuthin inside. Kinda like David Lynch's head.
DF
Bilge Ebiri
>I am reminded of a great "Simpson's" rip on Lynch, where homer is watching
>Twin Peaks. They cut to the TV and there is a man dancing with a sheep,
>underneath a traffic light dangling from a tree. Homer says "I have no
>idea what's going on, but it's brilliant."
>
>See, even Lynch doesn't know what his films are about, but moreover, he
>doesn't care.
Wait, don't you actually mean, "Homer Simpson has no idea what his films
are about." I'm personally not the biggest David Lynch fan here, but
this is just not proof of anything.
I have to say, Lynch has the ability to create and sustain a serious
atmosphere of unease, which more than makes up for his shortcomings as a
screenwriter. I find his films ultimately empty and not exactly worthy
of intense thought (exc. perhaps THE ELEPHANT MAN), but they are
>definitely< worlds of their own -- this is a quality that so few filmmakers today share that I have to look forward to Lynch's films, despite the fact that I despise so much of the hype that surrounds them. He's a director who does certain things so well that I'll overlook his serious failings for sustained stretches of time.
love,
Bilge.
LEJACKAL
>Just wondering any AMK'ers here like any of Lynch's films. I, personally
>>love his work, especially Eraserhead (never cease to amaze me) and Lost
Elephant Man (that scene when he watches that play at the end is beyond
genius), Dune, Blue Velvet and Wild At Heart are very good but Eraserhead and
Lost Highway are just two films I don't 'get'. Granted I haven't seen Erasehead
for years, so I'd no doubt view it differently than I did in my initial
viewing. I quite liked his recent short film he did on the Lumiere video as
well. --- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> Creating an world of your own on film doesn't constitute a good film,
> actually it doesn't even constitute an okay film in my book. I think the
> look of the picture is nothing without something to back it up, which
> Lynch simply doesn't offer.
I don't think you understand what Lynch is trying to do with his films.
Lynch is a post-modern artist who believes strongly (even more than
Kubrick) in the principle of "the audience as co-creator of the art."
That is, you are attempting to use conventional literary analysis on
post-modern art that defies traditional conventions of meaning. The
reason Lynch never defines his symbols is the same reason that Kubrick
will never tell you what the ending of 2001 means, or why Tarantino will
never tell you what's in that briefcase in Pulp Fiction. It's because
*YOU* define the symbols and infuse them with meaning. You, as the
audience, play a vital role in the creation of the art. That is why those
who are not inclined to post-modern interpretation and who were raised on
literary conventions just don't understand Lynch (Roger Ebert is a
classic example). You're looking for the artist to tell you what his
symbols mean, you want him to define the meaning of his film. But the
film means what you want it to mean, it is a post-modernist,
post-objectivist creation. It is meant to be a highly subjective
experience. Lynch can't tell you what his movies mean because only *YOU*
can answer that question.
Secretly or openly you suspect that Lynch's work is somehow hollow, but
the reason his films are hollow to *YOU* is because *YOU* have made them
that way. You haven't lived up to your part of the artistic bargain.
Lynch isn't out to teach you something about himself or about his
characters in his films...he's out to teach you something about
*YOURSELF*.
Dan Fineberg
So I suppose that all the people who don't like Lynch films simply
aren't giving the films their 'all', right? I view films how I view
films, and I understand David Lynch films completely. I understand that
there's nothing to understand. This whole business about creating
meanings for the symbols doesn't add up to me. If that's true, then what
hell do we need Lynch for? Saying that I'm not living up to my half of
the 'artistic bargain' is like saying that I'm doing something wrong
while watching movies. I give each movie I watch my full attention but
Lynch offers me nothing in return except confusion, and absolutely no
reason to believe that there is some underlying meaning for me to search
out.
The examples of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction and the end of the 2001
are good. Yes, they challenge us to build our own explanations, but not
for the whole film. If 2001 was filled with 2 1/2 hours of nuthin but
Star Child, sure I'd be confused, but I'm sure there'd be people like
you who would mysteriously see something very clear in it, or at least
think you do. To suggest that his films are hollow to me because I made
them that way clocks in at about 9.8 on my ignorant-meter, and it's an
explanation I often get from Lynch fans grasping at straws.
DF
Bilge Ebiri
leja...@aol.com (LEJACKAL) wrote:
I quite liked his recent short film he did on the Lumiere video as
>well. --- Alex
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That little film may in fact be the greatest film Lynch has made, or ever
will make.
love,
Bilge.
Bilge Ebiri
Dan Fineberg <D-F...@juno.com> wrote:
>actually it doesn't even constitute an okay film in my book. I think the
>look of the picture is nothing without something to back it up, which
>Lynch simply doesn't offer.
Your point would make more sense if you hadn't misread my post. I said
nothing about the LOOK of a picture. The ability to create a world -- a
living, breathing thing that takes on a life of its own -- is a far
greater and far more intangible thing than just creating pretty pictures,
or for that matter any kind of pictures. Lynch is someone who uses his
>cinematic< arsenal well, but simply does not possess a particularly good >literary< ability.
His films deal with dream-states, which is one of the things cinema can
do better than any other art form. It is also difficult, and unless one
accepts it, incongruous and inscrutable. LOST HIGHWAY is a flawed film,
but it gave me fever dreams for a week. A man who can do that may have
the potential to be a great artist, whatever his other failings.
Sometimes Lynch infuriates me, and sometimes he takes the easy way out
with his films. But the fact is that he is dealing with something very
specific and very difficult. He's in a world of his own, and I
personally have to respect that.
>He operates under the assumption that if you
>don't understand it, you can't knock it, so it must be good,
Sometimes.
>and I fell
>for it a couple of times until I realized he was doing the same thing
>with each of his pictures.
Maybe the times that you "fell for it", he was doing something different.
See, you sound a lot like the way I did a couple of years ago, when I
thought BLUE VELVET and THE ELEPHANT MAN and the first few episodes of
TWIN PEAKS were flukes and that Lynch was an empty-headed, opportunistic
weirdo. Then I saw his film for the documentary LUMIERE & CO., I
reviewed BLUE VELVET, and saw LOST HIGHWAY. I've come around, I think.
I still think DUNE is crap, WILD AT HEART is crap, and much of the later
TWIN PEAKS is crap.
> His films are like those model houses at
>Universal Studios that look real on the outside, but when the tram takes
>you around, there's nuthin inside. Kinda like David Lynch's head.
>DF
Except that Lynch's films have never claimed to "look" real or create the
illusion of reality. In the end, all cinema is empty. That's the
bittersweet beauty behind the screen: There's nothing there.
I see your points, Dan, but my only real point is that some of the films
seem to have worked for you once, at least. Maybe you'd like to give
him another chance. I for one am glad that I kept an open mind.
(Something I'm glad I didn't, BTW, for Ken Russell, who is closer to your
description of Lynch than Lynch himself is.) That's all.
love,
Bilge.
Dan Fineberg
> I see your points, Dan, but my only real point is that some of the films
> seem to have worked for you once, at least. Maybe you'd like to give
> him another chance. I for one am glad that I kept an open mind.
> (Something I'm glad I didn't, BTW, for Ken Russell, who is closer to your
> description of Lynch than Lynch himself is.) That's all.
>
> love,
>
> Bilge.
Sure, Lynch's films worked for me when I was younger, but on a very
empty level. They're visually awe-inspiring and absolutely unique. The
confusion isn't what pisses me off as much as the fact that I don't see
much else. Now, I realize that while watching a Lynch film will amaze me
on its technical level, it'll fail on all other levels, so the decision
has to be made individually on whether one wants to sit through it for
that purpose. The confusion I don't mind, I'm a great big fan of Bunuel,
who also placed meaningless images in his films which confuse the hell
outta me, but the stories and the themes held within are all there. I
desperately want to see a Lynch film that can hold my attention because
I'm positive that if given the right material, he can go down as one of
the cats. As it goes right now, I'd be surprised if anyone remembered
Blue Velvet ten years from now.
DF
geoffrey alexander
Bilge Ebiri <eb...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>[Lynch's] films deal with dream-states, which is one of the things cinema
>can do better than any other art form. It is also difficult, and unless
>one accepts it, incongruous and inscrutable. LOST HIGHWAY is a flawed
>film, but it gave me fever dreams for a week. A man who can do that may
>have the potential to be a great artist, whatever his other failings.
I've jacked better jism than "Lost Highway" yet "Elaphant Man" and
"Eraserhead" rewmain in my Waking....
>Sometimes Lynch infuriates me, and sometimes he takes the easy way out
>with his films. But the fact is that he is dealing with something very
>specific and very difficult. He's in a world of his own, and I
>personally have to respect that.
Yes....The first three episodes of Twin Peaks were where he might Do It...
But nothing after, IMO. Convince me.
--
Geoffrey Alexander
The Kubrick Site @ http://beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us/~tks
sfz@feedme
> > I see your points, Dan, but my only real point is that some of the films
> > seem to have worked for you once, at least. Maybe you'd like to give
> > him another chance. I for one am glad that I kept an open mind.
> > (Something I'm glad I didn't, BTW, for Ken Russell, who is closer to your
> > description of Lynch than Lynch himself is.) That's all.
> >
> > love,
> >
> > Bilge.
>
> Sure, Lynch's films worked for me when I was younger, but on a very
> empty level. They're visually awe-inspiring and absolutely unique. The
> confusion isn't what pisses me off as much as the fact that I don't see
> much else. Now, I realize that while watching a Lynch film will amaze me
> on its technical level, it'll fail on all other levels, so the decision
> has to be made individually on whether one wants to sit through it for
> that purpose. The confusion I don't mind, I'm a great big fan of Bunuel,
> who also placed meaningless images in his films which confuse the hell
> outta me, but the stories and the themes held within are all there. I
> desperately want to see a Lynch film that can hold my attention because
If Lynch's films are about one thing its "textures" emotional textures, visual
textures. The voyeuristic thrill of the movies. No, Lynch's films don't make an
y
serious comment about social issues or anything. They have personal meaning to
Lynch. Eraserhead is about his fear and disgust of being a young parent of a
child. They are art for it's own sake. To a certain degree the "confusion"
is the point of his films, the "what the hell is going on?" feeling and surreali
sm
go hand in hand. Like any surrealist work it involves personal obssessions and
symbolism which may not make complete sense to everyone but this is not importan
t.
What is important is that the are aesthetically and entertainingly costructed
Lynch's films are to a great extent non-narrative films, which like like 2001,
they are audio/visual poetry more than a plot. The mystery is meant to never
completely solved otherwise you have a "Cat and Canary" situation where in order
to create a "satisfying" return to logic all unexplained elements are debunked
as fake. Well, where the fun in that? Lost Highway is a nonlinear film that is
constructed so that the pieces will never fit in any exact order (unlike Pulp Fi
cton)
so the mysteries never end. Film need not be constrained by linear plots in ord
er
or logic in to have merit, anymore than a nonobjective painting need to have a
realisticly rendered subject. It all boils down to personal taste.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bilge Ebiri
geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us (geoffrey alexander) wrote:
>Bilge Ebiri <eb...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>[Lynch's] films deal with dream-states, which is one of the things cinema
>>can do better than any other art form. It is also difficult, and unless
>>one accepts it, incongruous and inscrutable. LOST HIGHWAY is a flawed
>>film, but it gave me fever dreams for a week. A man who can do that may
>>have the potential to be a great artist, whatever his other failings.
>
>I've jacked better jism than "Lost Highway" yet "Elaphant Man" and
>"Eraserhead" rewmain in my Waking....
Well, there, pard'ner, I guess we just disagree on LOST HIGHWAY. I'll be
happy to let you have the last word on that one, since you wax so
eloquently about it. :)
>
>>Sometimes Lynch infuriates me, and sometimes he takes the easy way out
>>with his films. But the fact is that he is dealing with something very
>>specific and very difficult. He's in a world of his own, and I
>>personally have to respect that.
>
>Yes....The first three episodes of Twin Peaks were where he might Do It...
>
>But nothing after, IMO. Convince me.
>
Have you seen his brief film (VERY brief) for the documentary LUMIERE &
CO.? I have no idea if the doc is out on video, but it's worth a look.
It's what convinced me he wasn't a pretentious tool.
As much as I'd love to convince you of anything, Geoff, I'm not the
world's biggest David Lynch fan. I also just watched DAYS OF HEAVEN
again and I'd rather go out there and bash the head in of some cocksucker
who doesn't like >that< film, or BADLANDS for that matter. :) Der Movie
Polizei are coming...
But I will say this about Lynch: For me, his films hold the same kind of
fascination that the first images ever projected on a screen do for
a child: It's not reality you're seeing, but a world in which >anything<
is possible. And he clearly approaches things from a "What if..."
perspective. What if I were walking in a field one day and I found an
ear? What would I do? It's basic cinema of attractions meets an
adolescent Rod Serling. Little social analysis, little narrative
structure, but the man clearly conceives of his situations impulsively --
giving little thought to their places within any kind of formal
aesthetic, but essentially creating situations, scenes, where the
inherent fascination is all there is.
What I find impressive is that he is able to sustain this mood -- from
the initial conception through the direction to the entirety of the film
itself. I seriosuly doubt that he knows what it's about, or what it
means, or anything -- that's why he can very easily make a film as
atrocious as DUNE or as captivating as BLUE VELVET. He can sustain the
energy of his waking dreams through the year-long process of making a
film and make them, in essence, OUR waking dreams. So many people have
tried and failed to do that. And when he fails (and he certainly has,
IMO) it's unwatchable -- horrible, pretentious, boring, and inscrutable,
like the second half of the TWIN PEAKS series, or WILD AT HEART (what I
saw of it), or FIRE WALK WITH ME.
Kubrick talks about adaptation and about how the trick is to hang onto
the initial fascination one has for a story, and to convey that to the
audience in the finished film. In his successful films, Lynch has proven
himself capable of doing that to what are, essentially, impulses --
governed by something other than intellect. Analyzing the films is
hopeless, I think. But the ability to be mystified, in the >best< sense
of the word, is something for which I cherish Lynch's best films.
The man is no Luis Bunuel, but who the fuck, may I ask, is? Nor is he
Kubrick or Cocteau or Bertolucci or whatever. But he is unique, and I've
been won over. For now.
love,
Bilge.
Lev28
Dan fineberg wrote:
>Creating an world of your own on film doesn't constitute a good film,
>actually it doesn't even constitute an okay film in my book.
Creating a world is the only true objective of any film. Lynch opens the doors
of his mind and allows us a peek. Thank you Mr Lynch, I for one love to spend
an hour or two in there with you.
LEV
Stefan Youngs
I agree that "Lost Highway" was amongest the year's best. In a year in
which there were not many great films ( IMHO ) this one has stayed with
me. That one and LA Confidential.
"Lost Highway" can seem confusing if you can't figure out what happens
to Pullman's character once he goes into the jail cell.
Stefan
Chris Wright
crhu...@yahoo.com
I think people are totally missing a take on LOST HIGHWAY which might
clarify a lot of the more vague or distressingly obtuse plot points (or
lack of plot points). For this idea to work, you have to view it through
the same lens that Eraserhead is viewed, which is that of a dream (in
defense of Lost Highway, people seem to totally discount that Lynch should
be given this artistic leeway twice, or something) ‹ Eraserhead sprung
from Lynch's own nightmares after moving from bucolic Montana (I believe)
to a crime-ridden slum in Pittsburgh, with a wife who had just given birth
to a deformed daughter (Lynch's daughter, Jennifer, who directed BOXING
HELEA, has a club-foot). LOST HIGHWAY'S nightmare is the psychic torture
of a relationship with a person who can never belong to you ‹ Patricia
Arquette plays two women who are the same person; the first angle of the
story is her husband's, an impotent cuckold, who is burned by the
knowledge that she is being unfaithful to him; in his second existence,
the second angle, the second attempt to "have" her, he becomes another
man,the sort of sleek, young, sexpot that she (in his view) would be
inclined to have an affair with. Again, he can not possess her, as her
desire to be unfaithful with him is just a symptom of her true disorder ‹
she is addicted to a irreversibly destructive existence (appearing in
snuff pornography, robbery and murder, her association with Robert
Loggia's character). She is a woman who even a homewrecking male cannot
have. In both instances, she is lost, and the pain of not having her
results in murder ‹ as her husband, Bill Pullman butchers her, and in his
second existance he kills Robert Loggia, the only man who seems to "own"
her in any sense. No matter which way Bill Pullman comes at the situation,
and rebirths himself in a new attempt to keep Patricia Arquette in his
life, she is an unobtainable goal.
I hope that my take on the film sparks a desire to re-view it.
Chris Hughes
V
In article <34BA8A...@apple.com>, Stefan says...
Yes! An excellent film, i thought it was definitely the most focused, undiluted
piece of Lynch ever. Blue Velvet maybe.....
everybody trashed it too, a shame. - V
elr...@pop.uky.edu
> To suggest that his films are hollow to me because I made
> them that way clocks in at about 9.8 on my ignorant-meter, and it's an
> explanation I often get from Lynch fans grasping at straws.
Well, post-modern subjectivism is just one of those things you either get
or you don't. People have similar reactions to abstract art. Some people
seek "objectivist" art, some reject the very idea of objectivism. It all
really depends on your approach to the material, and your views on its
purpose. Some directors, like Martin Scorsese, are relating a story to
the audience with their films. Some, like Billy Bob Thorton, are trying
to relate characters to the audience. And some, like Lynch, are
attempting to relate the audience to the audience. So if you approach
film with traditional literary tools (with values placed on the story
itself), Martin Scorsese will obviously be favored. If you'd prefer to
explore the characters themselves rather than the story they inhabit,
you'll probably favor Billy Bob Thorton. And, if you're a subjectivist
who would rather gain insight into yourself than gain insight into the
characters and stories that are being presented to you, you'll probably
be attracted to Lynch.
Personally I like all three approaches (and a multitude of other
approaches great directors take) for different reasons. I like abstract
art, but I still enjoy the work of the "objectivist" school as well.
Dr. Jonah Salk
V wrote:
> Yes! An excellent film, i thought it was definitely the most focused, undiluted
> piece of Lynch ever. Blue Velvet maybe.....
>
> everybody trashed it too, a shame. - V
I just came back tonight after posting the question about Kubrick's new film when
I saw this thread about David Lynch. Now I know I'm in the right place!
I bought the laser disc of 'Lost Highway' sight unseen (I was way to busy when it
was playing here in town at theaters). It was money well spent. This is the kind of
film you can see several times and get something new from it each time.
The book 'Wierdsville U.S.A.' has some good info on what Lynch was attempting with
the film (the actors were initially just as confused as some film critics would
later be). This movie is definitely meant to be taken as an experience instead of a
normal linear plot. Some of the things that don't make sense really do if you
realize that Lynch intends the Renee/Alice (patricia arqutte) character(s) to be
central to everything that happens in the film. Anyway, I'm rambling now, sorry
guys.
Is there a faq for this group I can read, so that I don't wander off-topic and make
people angry with me?
Thanks.
Benjamin Johnson
> His films are like those model houses at
> Universal Studios that look real on the outside, but when the tram takes
> you around, there's nuthin inside. Kinda like David Lynch's head.
> DF
Speak for yourself.
Okay, I'm kidding. I actually admire people who refuse to back Lynch.
I think there is a tendency with him to use his status as the weirdo of
cinema to sell his work. Any average filmgoer who really gets off on
any given genre picture or safe Hollywood junk can still enjoy a Lynch
movie for some reason, and I think it is because
people can laugh at how tripped out they are by the movie, and enjoy it
on that very shallow of levels. But I think the post-modern explanation
of bringing your own meanings to the symbols is very legit. So what if
Lynch takes it further than Kubrick or Tarantino? I think Lynch is
daring enough to make things that leave everything
wide open, and not waste his time, or mine, with concrete crap to
comfort those who want it. If you are creating an experience that
requires the audience to bring something to it, then it is very
debateable how much of a jumpstart you need to give the audience. Lynch
assumes that you already know what you are getting in to, and if
he is wrong, then yes, it really does mean that you have failed to bring
something to it, because by this time you know who David Lynch is, and
are not going in blind to his experience.
Than again, maybe he's just a good bullshitter, but I doubt it, because
his films show a lot of expertise in many areas, so why would he bother
with something that has no meaning to him, or to anyone else? Now THAT
just doesn't add up!
Dan Fineberg
elr...@pop.uky.edu wrote:
>
> > To suggest that his films are hollow to me because I made
> > them that way clocks in at about 9.8 on my ignorant-meter, and it's an
> > explanation I often get from Lynch fans grasping at straws.
>
> Well, post-modern subjectivism is just one of those things you either get
> or you don't. People have similar reactions to abstract art. Some people
> seek "objectivist" art, some reject the very idea of objectivism. It all
> really depends on your approach to the material, and your views on its
> purpose.
I have a great affinity for abstract art, though it's difficult to
distinguish one from the other because it's...well, abstract. It doesn't
fall into a category so appreciating one means appreciating all. I don't
have to understand something to appreciate it, but it has to have _some_
redeeming qualities that will compel me to sit still for 2 hours of my
life. I think my problem with Lynch is my problem with people like Tim
Burton, who seem to be trapped in a recurring loop they can't get
themselves out of. Lynch's films look and feel the same to me, this
confusing dream-state is something I now expect from each of his films,
and I just grow tired of it. Same with Tim Burton. You can only be nutty
for so long. If I were a film director, I'd do everything in my power to
do exactly the opposite of what I'm expected to do. As soon as you're
put into a box, you're dead, and I think it's the duty of any artist to
avoid the categories that people will place on them.
DF
Martin Koolhoven
Blue Vevet was brilliant. Lost Highway is his best film.
Martin
geoffrey alexander
"Dr. Jonah Salk" <djs...@aol.com> writes:
>Is there a faq for this group I can read, so that I don't wander off-topic and make
>people angry with me?
>Thanks.
As long as you don't claim to cure polio, Dr. Salk (Sabin did that, I'll
aver) you can post as you please. Don't EVER worry about getting people here
angry with you. I don't (as regards my own posts) and look how THAT works.
Patrick Larkin
V writes:
>In article <34BA8A...@apple.com>, Stefan says...
>>
>>I agree that "Lost Highway" was amongest the year's best. In a year in
>>which there were not many great films ( IMHO ) this one has stayed with
>>me. That one and LA Confidential.
>>"Lost Highway" can seem confusing if you can't figure out what happens
>>to Pullman's character once he goes into the jail cell.
>Yes! An excellent film, i thought it was definitely the most focused, undiluted
>piece of Lynch ever. Blue Velvet maybe.....
>everybody trashed it too, a shame. - V
Lynch was very bummed out that critcs killed the movie "Twin Peaks: Fire
Walk With Me." He felt it was one of his best efforts and urged everyone to
reconsider it.
Patrick
Will Flor
Keywords:
>"Dr. Jonah Salk" <djs...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>Is there a faq for this group I can read, so that I don't wander off-topic and
> make
>>people angry with me?
>>Thanks.
>
>
>
>As long as you don't claim to cure polio, Dr. Salk (Sabin did that, I'll
>aver) you can post as you please.
That was his evil twin Jonas.
-Will Flor wi...@will-flor.spamblock.com
Appropriately adjust my return address to reach me via e-mail.
Gordon Dahlquist
On 14 Jan 1998, Patrick Larkin wrote:
>
> Lynch was very bummed out that critcs killed the movie "Twin Peaks: Fire
> Walk With Me." He felt it was one of his best efforts and urged everyone to
> reconsider it.
I'd have to agree - I think it might be his most successful film ... it
aims higher than blue velvet (which is a success, I think) and is more
consistent than WAH or LH, which, while I enjoyed them in general, strike
me as being riddled with frustrating indulgence and inconsistency ...
after watching lost highway, I sort of wish lynch would go ahead and make
a porn film and get it out of his system ... though the first half hour
was simply brilliant.
Dr. Jonah Salk
Will Flor wrote:
I have to say, you're all quite a witty bunch. Not one amongst you can answer a simple question, but are full of plenty of
smart-ass remarks. Thanks a lot for your help.
Thrawn
Today is Lynch's bithday. He is 52. Gee, that really makes SK an old
director...