David Lynch

[esquire.]

To Mike or any of the film buffs out there,

Can you please explain what's so special about ouevre of David Lynch. I've never understood his critical acclaim. Maybe, if somebody points out what's so special so that I can look for it next time and I will be able to finally appreciate it.

There are some critically acclaimed movies that I just don't appreciate, but some of these are so old that what was so ground breaking about it has now become cliche. But, Lynch's movies are still new and, Mullohand Drive just came out over a year ago.

After watching that movie, I just wanted my money back. Isn't a movie supposed to have some story to it, or make some sense? It was just two completely different movies thrown together, and you didn't know which one was the real one. The only thing that didn't make it a total waste of time was seeing Naomi Watts nude. I suspect the only reason anyone watches his movies is for the graphic sex. Other than Brown Bunny, I think he gets away with the most for a R rating.

 

[j]

I liked Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks, but I thought Mulholland Drive was ridiculous. Tokyo Slim may want to weigh in on this, because he and I had a lengthy discussion about that movie, but in my opinion most people who said it was good only said so in an attempt to look smart or cultured or something. David Lynch says he makes his movies like dreams, and they are not necessarily supposed to make sense. In this case I wished I were the one who was asleep.

 

[jasonpraxis]

As an auteur, David Lynch has one of the most unique visual styles in modern cinema, but what I find he lacks is a "signature" move. Kubrick, for example, had his long range close-ups and his tracking shots. Lynch, on the other hand, creates moods and atmospheres in his films, which sometimes have a polarizing or confusing effect.

I'm thinking of 1997's "Lost Highway" now, about how Lynch used a slow and measured pace to heighten dramatic tension. He, like Kubrick, luxuriates in the detail that a slow pace allows; unlike Kubrick, Lynch does not have a good feel for the epic. Without the release that space affords, Lynch's films take on a claustrophobic feel, which is sharpened by his penchant for shooting from odd angles, and reducing the depth of field of his cameras to flatten out the scenes.

All in, Lynch's films have a "dreamlike" quality in the sense that they don't necessarily adhere to conventions of time, place, character, or narrative. A lot of viewers find this irritating, and I happen to be one of them. I don't generally watch his films more than once or twice, but I recognize their artistic value and leave it at that. I don't think there has been a really good study of Lynch, either in film or print, but you might keep an eye out for "Pretty as a Picture," an hourlong documentary that runs on Bravo occasionally, or "Lynch on Lynch," a collection of interviews that is worth a trip to the library.

 

[Mike]

I had typed a semi-lengthy reply earlier before class, only to hit Apple+Q instead of Apple+W to close out a window. Everything was gone and I was already running late. I think Lynch may be popular just because he makes his films bizarre and outlandish. His films are not very commercial, but he gets the crowds for that reason. He does somethings in his films that is so bizarre that it makes you question everything, including what is really real outside of the film. I think he uses color to a very good advantage. It is always there to add something to the scene, be it mood or something else. He composes his shots well and always seems to use his actors to get something new from them, although I'm not sure Dennis Hopper really had to stretch in "Blue Velvet"

As for your thoughts on "Mullholland Drive," you are correct. It was a television pilot Lynch did that didn't get picked up. The pilot ended when the women found the blue box. The stuff after that is apparently what would have developed as the show made its run, or it could just be a cop out, I'm not sure. I will talk to some of my friends in the film department over the next couple of days to see what input they might have. Unfortunatly, my earlier response had some better content than this one. Too bad I was rushing.

 

[matadorpoeta]

esquire,

lynch's films don't speak to me, and if they don't speak to you , that's fine. there is never a need to study an artist in order to appreciate his work. it is the responsibility of the artist to connect with you (if he indeed has anything worth communicating).

art is about life. live your life fully, and then when you watch a movie, look at a painting, or hear a song, you'll either relate to it or you won't. it either speaks to you or it doesn't. it's that simple.

 

[Brian SD]

Lynch, on the other hand, creates moods and atmospheres in his films, which sometimes have a polarizing or confusing effect.

This is precisely why I like Lynch. He communicates his message through atmospheric feeling as opposed to direct story. Of course you can only have so much of it before you crave the instant gratification of the another film style (preferrably in the style of the Coen brothers, Wes Anderson, Guy Ritchie, or Charlie Kaufman).

 

[Tokyo Slim]

I like David Lynch - not so much for his movies, per se, but his cojones. Who else could have talked Hollywood into making Mulholland Drive? Who else would have had the balls to make a two and a half hour movie about...whatever?

I can say that he practically INVENTED Naomi Watts in that movie, which is not such a bad thing. Her transformation halfway through the movie was incredible. Off the top of my head I can not think of another actress who could, for half a movie, fool me into thinking they are completely brain-dead, and then for the other half, make me think that she is possibly one of the best actresses working in film today.

Also, I get uncomfortable around logs because of David Lynch. Who else can do that to a person?

 

[faustian bargain]

.... Also, I get uncomfortable around logs because of David Lynch. Who else can do that to a person?

a log-wielding psycho killer?

twin peaks was fun to watch, but the third season got a little loopy. i think he evolutionized tv with that show.

 

[retronotmetro]

Also, I get uncomfortable around logs because of David Lynch. Who else can do that to a person?

Late one night, years ago, when Twin Peaks was in its second season, I was sitting in the House of Pies at the corner of Franklin and Vermont in LA, having coffee and a slice of cherry pie with a friend. The person at the booth behind me had been silently sitting there alone for a long time, and suddenly started talking to her food. I turned around and saw it was the Log Lady, either in character or demonstrating that her character was not an act.

Sometimes reality and fantasy converge seamlessly and perfectly.

 

[faustian bargain]

yipes. i would have been seriously creeped out.

re. food, we used to get together with a bunch of friends every week, have coffee and doughnuts, and watch TP. i can't believe that was 14 years ago. *sigh* i might have to buy the dvd of the series just for nostalgia's sake.

 

[LabelKing]

Mulholland Drive in its conceptual form speaks about Hollywood's churning, and then eventual disposal of these actors, et al.

The Austrain "Funny Games" is rather an assaulting film.

And "Audition."

 

[Kai]

I've never seen the attraction either.

I have to admit that I never saw Twin Peaks, although I did think that Sherilyn Fenn was pretty luscious in the promos I saw.

I thought his rendition of Dune was awful. He departed too far from the book, and the result was just a mess.

I remember when Twin Peaks, Fire Walk with Me came out, one of the critics went so far as to create a very funny movie promo poster, with actual honest quotes from other critics and audience members. Stuff like "worst movie ever made;" "I think I lost 15 points off my IQ from watching that movie" etc.

I saw Blue Velvet. It was ok. I suppose it was the Pulp Fiction of its day, as it raised the "shock" level a bit compared with other thriller/dramas.

 

[retronotmetro]

I've never seen the attraction either.  

I have to admit that I never saw Twin Peaks, although I did think that Sherilyn Fenn was pretty luscious in the promos I saw.  

I thought his rendition of Dune was awful.  He departed too far from the book, and the result was just a mess.  

I remember when Twin Peaks, Fire Walk with Me came out, one of the critics went so far as to create a very funny movie promo poster, with actual honest quotes from other critics and audience members.  Stuff like "worst movie ever made;" "I think I lost 15 points off my IQ from watching that movie" etc.  

I saw Blue Velvet.  It was ok.  I suppose it was the Pulp Fiction of its day, as it raised the "shock" level a bit compared with other thriller/dramas.

The first season of Twin Peaks was, IMHO, some of his finest work.  Being forced to fit the format of network television, and passing the approval of network standards+practices people resulted in television that was really very different for its day.

I really wanted to like his adaptation of Dune, but it fell flat in too many ways to count.  The extended version that has been shown on TV adds back a lot of the missing story elements, but that doesn't really save it.

Oh, and Lara Flynn Boyle (pre-anorexia), Madchen Amick, and Sheryl Lee were all looking pretty good, not just Sherilyn Fenn.

 

[retronotmetro]

yipes. i would have been seriously creeped out.

re. food, we used to get together with a bunch of friends every week, have coffee and doughnuts, and watch TP. i can't believe that was 14 years ago. *sigh* i might have to buy the dvd of the series just for nostalgia's sake.

It was very creepy.  The girl I was with, who was an avid Peaks watcher, nearly fell out of her seat.

I have the Season 1 DVDs.  Watching them will make you want the second season right away, unfortunately.