Cinema as Art

[Han...@webtv.net]

Painting is the most ancient form of Art, writing has been considered
Art for almost the same amount of time, and music in all its many forms
is quite rightly considered an Art in itself, but why does the reference
to cinema as Art create such a divided opinion? It is simply because
there is virtually no Art in cinema whatsoever.

To use Hollywood as an illustartion, its cinema is a hopeless hotchpotch
of literary adaptations fused with the hip sounds of MTV's best sellers.
Peter Greenaway… "Cinema is far too important to leave to the
storytellers…"

What does this have to do with Lynch? In my opinion Lynch is probably
the only American film maker with the potenial to create Art in cinema.
He has, however, sacrificed this quest in his pursuit of the literary
necessity of storytelling with particular reference to "Lost Highway".

I have said before in this newsgroup that I believe Lynch to be
intuitive and a surrealist in the true sense of the word but on reading
the opinions of fellow contributors in the newsgroup I find myself
increasingly dissatisfied with his recent work. He was quoted as saying
he would never go "overground" again, but the commercialism of "Lost
Highway" is readily apparent to me in its submission to the need for
literary resolution i.e. the whole porn movie subtext.

I would like to talk briefly about Peter Greenaway as I think he is
particulary relevent to my current opinion (and there seems to be no
other forum for discussion of his works). While avidly denouncing
everything surreal Greenaway holds one very important similarity with
the surrealist movement; that of the unflinching belief that to
compromise your vision is to be a hypocrital plagiarist. His films are
in no way intuitive, are more or less linear yet he retains a personal
belief in his ideas that is unique. This is not withut its downsides; he
is often interpreted as pompous, self-absorbed and without any interest
in the viewers perception of his creation. These are obviously not hot
marketing tools for his creations but he is not in the business of
marketing, or more precisely "entertaining".

This is my point - cinema today has become first and foremost a form of
entertainment, primarily driven by the publics unaccepetance of anything
remotely challenging to the mind. My interest in Lynch and his work lies
not in how he can entertain me but in the thought processes his
creations inspire in me, and this is what I seek from all forms of art.
While gladly admitting to be entertained as well, I view "Art" and it's
parent "Culture" as vehicles for us to gain more intimate understandings
of ourselves and our interactions in our environments.

With respect to this ideal I am particularly disappointed with "Lost
Highway". I believe its greatest failing was that it relied too much on
being grounded in reality. In relation to his other works it bears
closest resemblance to "Eraserhead" in its very insularly controlled
progression, but what makes "Eraserhead" more surreal, more
uncompromising is the obvious struggle Lynch had in portaying the real
and the surreal in the same context. The dichotomy is what makes it
succesful; it is exploratory, a theraputic. cathartic release of ideas
without regard for the viewer or accepted cinematic conventions.

Andre Breton… "nothing worthwhile in Art is achieved without risking
one's life…"

As an "Artist" myself I wholeheartedly believe this: its context (the
politically charged 1920's of Europe) warrants a literal intepretation,
but it is the metaphorical meaning that holds truth for me - the idea
that everything you create comes from within and by revealing it you are
exposing yourself. We have seen this many times throughout Lynch's
works, but in "Lost Highway" he just teases, rehashes and plagiarises
himself, hiding behind his reputation for weird scenes and characters.
What is at times non-linear, surreal and inexact turns into cliche, and
Lynch doing Lynch i.e inaccessible female "Barbie" dolls (there's a
whole seperate debate on that!), personification of evil, porn subtext,
and cool bad guys.

Although "Lost Highway" fell short of my expectations, I was engrossed
and frequently amazed at the visual impact of the film as a whole. It
still containss one of the most original moments in cinema in my opinion
- the blurred focus transformation of Fred into Pete - this is truly a
moment of "Cinema as Art"; the perfect manipulation of light, image and
aural presence.

He is without a doubt unique in the world of American film makers, and
incomparable to the new wave hipsters like Tarantino whose sole
motivation is observational narratives a la Jerry Seinfield.

I would love to see a collaboration between Lynch and Greenaway - this
will never happen of course - but the steadfast diligence of greenaway
and the intuitive spontanaiety of Lynch could produce some truly
invigorating "Art" in a medium that while still in its infancy has not
been exploited for the potential that it holds.

Let the debate begin…

[Robert Glenn Plotner]

Han...@webtv.net wrote:

>Painting is the most ancient form of Art, writing has been considered
>Art for almost the same amount of time, and music in all its many forms
>is quite rightly considered an Art in itself, but why does the reference
>to cinema as Art create such a divided opinion? It is simply because
>there is virtually no Art in cinema whatsoever.
>
>To use Hollywood as an illustartion, its cinema is a hopeless hotchpotch
>of literary adaptations fused with the hip sounds of MTV's best sellers.

>Peter Greenaway=85 "Cinema is far too important to leave to the
>storytellers=85"

>
>What does this have to do with Lynch? In my opinion Lynch is probably
>the only American film maker with the potenial to create Art in cinema.
>He has, however, sacrificed this quest in his pursuit of the literary
>necessity of storytelling with particular reference to "Lost Highway".
>
>I have said before in this newsgroup that I believe Lynch to be
>intuitive and a surrealist in the true sense of the word but on reading
>the opinions of fellow contributors in the newsgroup I find myself
>increasingly dissatisfied with his recent work. He was quoted as saying
>he would never go "overground" again, but the commercialism of "Lost
>Highway" is readily apparent to me in its submission to the need for
>literary resolution i.e. the whole porn movie subtext.

The only concession to commercialism in Lynch's work that I'm aware of
is "Dune." I don't necessarily agree that narrative form equals
commercialism. That has more to do with the substance and goal of the
work (marketability, product placement, commercial tie-ins). Also, I
think Lynch is very aware of cinema's illusion of reality and will use
devices such as the porn screening in LH to subtle effect. Perhaps the
screening is a mirror to Fred/Pete's psyche and is commenting on the
illusion of desire, an illustration that mirrors the audience
experience. He used a similar device in the odd television commercials
within Twin Peaks as well as using suspense (Who Killed Laura Palmer?)
to expose the gullibility of the "mass" audience.

>
>I would like to talk briefly about Peter Greenaway as I think he is
>particulary relevent to my current opinion (and there seems to be no
>other forum for discussion of his works). While avidly denouncing
>everything surreal Greenaway holds one very important similarity with
>the surrealist movement; that of the unflinching belief that to
>compromise your vision is to be a hypocrital plagiarist. His films are
>in no way intuitive, are more or less linear yet he retains a personal
>belief in his ideas that is unique. This is not withut its downsides; he
>is often interpreted as pompous, self-absorbed and without any interest
>in the viewers perception of his creation. These are obviously not hot
>marketing tools for his creations but he is not in the business of
>marketing, or more precisely "entertaining".
>
>This is my point - cinema today has become first and foremost a form of
>entertainment, primarily driven by the publics unaccepetance of anything
>remotely challenging to the mind. My interest in Lynch and his work lies
>not in how he can entertain me but in the thought processes his
>creations inspire in me, and this is what I seek from all forms of art.
>While gladly admitting to be entertained as well, I view "Art" and it's
>parent "Culture" as vehicles for us to gain more intimate understandings
>of ourselves and our interactions in our environments.
>

I entirely agree with your assessment of Peter Greenaway. I likewise
feel he is in touch with the metaphorical image as the root of art.
Art first appeared in the great cave paintings as a response of the
psyche to emerging consciousness in humans. Consciousness, an
analogical rendering of the self, is revealed in an awareness of our
mortality--burials, sometimes elaborate, begin to appear in the same
time frame. Mystery and mortality go hand in hand. Seeing the
analogical self through our mortality allowed us to ask "why?" That
"why?" is the beginning of art and metaphysics. The magnificent
animals so often depicted in these first images presented early man
with a moral dilemma for he now had knowledge through self analogy of
life and death. He was dependent upon the animals for his existence
(food, clothing, shelter, and tools) and so the animals were in a
sense his gods, the givers of all things; and yet he had to kill his
god. Of course, what emerges from that is the animal as sacrificial
emissary of the god spirit. The great mysterious paintings in the
deepest, blackest depths of these caves were intensely metaphorical of
these spirits, and very much of our own psyche. I think Greenaway has
tapped this for here we are again entering dark caves watching
metaphorical images through flickering light. And I think he has a
real clue to the power of pure imagery as metaphor. Lynch seems more
in tune with the psyche. So I wholeheartedly agree the two would
produce a most powerful mix. Each has their own paths to follow,
however, and in any case it will be interesting to follow their
development. Have you decided to pursue filmwork? Perhaps you should.

>With respect to this ideal I am particularly disappointed with "Lost
>Highway". I believe its greatest failing was that it relied too much on
>being grounded in reality. In relation to his other works it bears
>closest resemblance to "Eraserhead" in its very insularly controlled
>progression, but what makes "Eraserhead" more surreal, more
>uncompromising is the obvious struggle Lynch had in portaying the real
>and the surreal in the same context. The dichotomy is what makes it
>succesful; it is exploratory, a theraputic. cathartic release of ideas
>without regard for the viewer or accepted cinematic conventions.

I don't think Lynch is a committed Surrealist. There certainly are
elements in his work which have surrealistic impact. I see much of his
art as speculation on what is behind the curtain of illusion we think
of as "reality" (whether it is placed in terms of psychology,
idealism, or quantum mechanics--these are all valid POVs). So far he
has found it necessary to encompass this in narrative form (with the
possible exception of the "Industrial Symphony" --do I have the title
correct?) with occasional flashes of pure representation. He does
grasp the metaphorical nature of the image, however, and I think he is
uncompromised in his portrayal of psychical and imaginal analogies.
>
>Andre Breton=85 "nothing worthwhile in Art is achieved without risking
>one's life=85"

>Let the debate begin=85

Just curious, but what do you think of Luis Bunuel, Jean Cocteau, Ken
Russell?

Robert