The Thread for Musings (mostly) about David Lynch

[Quango]

Some I would recommend to you are

Inland Empire
Mullholland Drive


I'm curious what you see to recommend about Inland Empire. For me it went from unintentionally hilarious (rabbit people sitcom) to damn near unwatchable (Laura Dern screaming for an hour and a half). Maybe there's a semi-coherent thread buried deep within the movie, but it looked like a 200 minute piece of crap to me.

Mulholland Drive is probably the best TV pilot ever, but I don't think it adds up to a great film. We get introduced to nearly a dozen characters and only end up seeing three of them again. It's a bit frustrating.

[SirManchester]

I'm curious what you see to recommend about Inland Empire. For me it went from unintentionally hilarious (rabbit people sitcom) to damn near unwatchable (Laura Dern screaming for an hour and a half). Maybe there's a semi-coherent thread buried deep within the movie, but it looked like a 200 minute piece of crap to me.

Mulholland Drive is probably the best TV pilot ever, but I don't think it adds up to a great film. We get introduced to nearly a dozen characters and only end up seeing three of them again. It's a bit frustrating.

I personally love Lynch. He's my favorite director and it's hard for me to explain that to others, other than I love his eccentricities, not for the sake of being different but because they appeal to me aesthetically and thematically, more than any other director.

Inland Empire is an exercise in everything he's done in his career but in another format. You can see he's loving the freedom of digital video compared to film. The crudeness of the video itself, the cheapness of it lends itself perfectly to the atmosphere and sense of dread he's built up in his films all his career. I didn't think it was comical at all, but the scariest and freshest film I've seen in a long time. I always feel like Lynch will offer the most exiting ans dangerous path in narrative film when anything new comes out because he pushes the format continuously and doesn't get sucked into the void of having to cater to others - only to himself, and that's what a true artist is in my opinion. One example of just how innovative he is, his use of sound has redefined the way it's been used in tv and film and it's gone completely unnoticed. I might have mentioned it before on this forum but instead of using sound simply to supplement the narrative he makes it part of the narrative, where it becomes equal to the camera.

[elbp]

I personally love Lynch. He's my favorite director and it's hard for me to explain that to others, other than I love his eccentricities, not for the sake of being different but because they appeal to me aesthetically and thematically, more than any other director.

Inland Empire is an exercise in everything he's done in his career but in another format. You can see he's loving the freedom of digital video compared to film. The crudeness of the video itself, the cheapness of it lends itself perfectly to the atmosphere and sense of dread he's built up in his films all his career. I didn't think it was comical at all, but the scariest and freshest film I've seen in a long time. I always feel like Lynch will offer the most exiting ans dangerous path in narrative film when anything new comes out because he pushes the format continuously and doesn't get sucked into the void of having to cater to others - only to himself, and that's what a true artist is in my opinion. One example of just how innovative he is, his use of sound has redefined the way it's been used in tv and film and it's gone completely unnoticed. I might have mentioned it before on this forum but instead of using sound simply to supplement the narrative he makes it part of the narrative, where it becomes equal to the camera.

Eraserhead, a case in point. The sound drives the film.

I haven't seen Inland Empire but I feel pretty much the same way about Lynch.

[NER_MCFC]

I personally love Lynch. He's my favorite director and it's hard for me to explain that to others, other than I love his eccentricities, not for the sake of being different but because they appeal to me aesthetically and thematically, more than any other director.

For me, the eccentricities are too much unless he's operating under enough restrictions that I perceive some overlap between his world and mine. I only ever remember twice walking out of a theater when I'd paid to get in, and it was a David Lynch movie both times (Eraserhead and Elephant Man), but I absolutely loved Twin Peaks (season one anyway). It was pretty far out there, but because of the restrictions of television, he couldn't just do whatever he wanted.

[SirManchester]

For me, the eccentricities are too much unless he's operating under enough restrictions that I perceive some overlap between his world and mine. I only ever remember twice walking out of a theater when I'd paid to get in, and it was a David Lynch movie both times (Eraserhead and Elephant Man), but I absolutely loved Twin Peaks (season one anyway). It was pretty far out there, but because of the restrictions of television, he couldn't just do whatever he wanted.

I can't agree with any of this. When you begin to restrict artistic license, then you kill off every reason why artists exist in the first place.

[Quango]

I can't agree with any of this. When you begin to restrict artistic license, then you kill off every reason why artists exist in the first place.

But if that "restriction" is say working within a coherent plot, it can keep an artist from being too self-indulgent. Inland Empire felt like Lynch had several different ideas he didn't follow through on, so he just pasted them together in an incoherent mess. The bunny people were funny because it was so absurd and irrelevant that I had to laugh and I remember saying aloud, "Well, that's David Lynch for you." It felt like unintended self-parody on Lynch's part.

[SirManchester]

But if that "restriction" is say working within a coherent plot, it can keep an artist from being too self-indulgent. Inland Empire felt like Lynch had several different ideas he didn't follow through on, so he just pasted them together in an incoherent mess. The bunny people were funny because it was so absurd and irrelevant that I had to laugh and I remember saying aloud, "Well, that's David Lynch for you." It felt like unintended self-parody on Lynch's part.


The idea of a 'coherent plot' is subjective though. Who says everything has to follow the traditional standard of what a coherent plot means? That's what's great about Lynch and others who experiment and push those boundaries - they make us see the same stories in different ways.

I personally don't find Lynch too self indulgent but I completely acknowledge that he's an auteur and I don't like to use that word too much and he has full artistic license. If he has a vision, he should follow through on it completely, otherwise it's not his vision and he's not really able to express himself and his ideas to the degree that makes an artist and artist.

Inland Empire for example was admittedly an experimental film composed of different vignettes. Lynch didn't bullshit anyone into thinking it was a complete three act narrative. It's pretty evident it was a flow of ideas over time that were linked by similar themes. The improvisational nature of it also gave it a unique and fresh take on the themes he usually explores so it was a completely new way to see a Lynch film as well.

About the comedy element. Lynch's dark themes come from the idea of combining elements that you wouldn't normally see combined, and a lot of his vignettes, even in other films (particularly Wild At Heart) wouldn't work unless he treats it as absurdly funny. The bunny scenes for me were absolutely terrifying but that's because before the film I put myself completely in the mental space that allows me to view his films with the idea of what his intention is. Therefore I was able to fully absorb the Bunny scene as something absurd, but also as something terrifying and mysterious - probably what he was intending in the first place.

This isn't for everyone I suppose and I know there's a group that believes films should be able to be absorbed and viewed by anyone without prior knowledge or education because the film should do its job first and foremost to give us that education. While I agree with most of that when it comes to Lynch who has such a set vision, I don't think the audience should come into it expecting something traditional but more importantly should come in without biases and completely open minded because that's the only way they are able to absorb the film in its most natural form.

[Via_Chicago]

I like recent Lynch because he completely abandoned plot for dream logic. You can either like Lynch for what he is, or hate him for what he's not.

[NER_MCFC]

I can't agree with any of this. When you begin to restrict artistic license, then you kill off every reason why artists exist in the first place.
What are you talking about? Nobody in the movie business has unrestricted license. If it's not a studio, financial backers or a TV network deciding what's allowed, it's the simple realities of money, or the lack of it.

I get that Lynch's style in its unfettered form has enormous appeal to some people, I just don't care. His films don't work for me, and I'm not enough of a fan boy to worry about not liking the right directors.

[Demosthenes]

The idea of a 'coherent plot' is subjective though. Who says everything has to follow the traditional standard of what a coherent plot means? That's what's great about Lynch and others who experiment and push those boundaries - they make us see the same stories in different ways.
Not everything has to follow a traditional standard, but when a film is as inscrutable as most of Lynch's, then there are no access points for a viewer to become engaged. Then what the director is doing is not experimenting or pushing boundaries, but masturbating. It's all for his own satisfaction, and maybe a few pervs who like to watch that kind of thing.

I personally don't find Lynch too self indulgent but I completely acknowledge that he's an auteur and I don't like to use that word too much and he has full artistic license. If he has a vision, he should follow through on it completely, otherwise it's not his vision and he's not really able to express himself and his ideas to the degree that makes an artist and artist.
He is too self-indulgent. Lynch is the poster boy for artistic self-indulgence. As NER_MCFC pointed out, nobody can ever follow through on his vision completely, not when it comes to film. There are too many inherent limitations. If what you value is unfettered self-expression, then you must adore high school poetry and undergraduate art films. I mean, give an 8 mm camera to a group of 19-year-old film majors, and you will see some boundary-pushing. A classmate of mine shot her ugly friend taking a bath for 30 minutes. Just naked, laying in the bathtub relaxing for 30 minutes. That's pure, unrestricted self-expression. But it's still garbage.

This isn't for everyone I suppose and I know there's a group that believes films should be able to be absorbed and viewed by anyone without prior knowledge or education because the film should do its job first and foremost to give us that education. While I agree with most of that when it comes to Lynch who has such a set vision, I don't think the audience should come into it expecting something traditional but more importantly should come in without biases and completely open minded because that's the only way they are able to absorb the film in its most natural form.
"Absorb the film in its most natural form?" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

A film is supposed to have an effect on its audience. If it fails to have the intended effect, then it fails. Now, of course, the same film will not resonate in the same way with all audiences, and what succeeds for one viewer may fail with another. Personally, I particularly appreciate and enjoy films which flout conventions and subvert tradition, but it all has to serve a purpose. When I watch Lynch's films, I see all atmosphere and no substance. I see absurdity and surrealism for its own sake, and boundary-pushing for its own sake. Usually it all adds up to very little.

[Foosinho]

I mean, give an 8 mm camera to a group of 19-year-old film majors, and you will see some boundary-pushing. A classmate of mine shot her ugly friend taking a bath for 30 minutes. Just naked, laying in the bathtub relaxing for 30 minutes. That's pure, unrestricted self-expression.

Didn't Andy Warhol already do that?

[Demosthenes]

EDIT: Well, it appears Via changed his mind about his post and deleted it while I was replying. Out of courtesy I've deleted the reply.

[SirManchester]

What are you talking about? Nobody in the movie business has unrestricted license. If it's not a studio, financial backers or a TV network deciding what's allowed, it's the simple realities of money, or the lack of it.

That's not completely true. Lynch finances his own films and has final cut.

Not everything has to follow a traditional standard, but when a film is as inscrutable as most of Lynch's, then there are no access points for a viewer to become engaged. Then what the director is doing is not experimenting or pushing boundaries, but masturbating. It's all for his own satisfaction, and maybe a few pervs who like to watch that kind of thing.

Then why am I engaged? Again, it's all subjective.


He is too self-indulgent. Lynch is the poster boy for artistic self-indulgence. As NER_MCFC pointed out, nobody can ever follow through on his vision completely, not when it comes to film. There are too many inherent limitations. If what you value is unfettered self-expression, then you must adore high school poetry and undergraduate art films. I mean, give an 8 mm camera to a group of 19-year-old film majors, and you will see some boundary-pushing. A classmate of mine shot her ugly friend taking a bath for 30 minutes. Just naked, laying in the bathtub relaxing for 30 minutes. That's pure, unrestricted self-expression. But it's still garbage.

Nothing about this holds any truth.


"Absorb the film in its most natural form?" I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

What I meant was going into a film objectively without any biases. In other words, you don't go see a film when you know you're not a fan of the director or in case of Bruno for example because it's topical, don't go see it if you're easily offended.

A film is supposed to have an effect on its audience. If it fails to have the intended effect, then it fails. Now, of course, the same film will not resonate in the same way with all audiences, and what succeeds for one viewer may fail with another. Personally, I particularly appreciate and enjoy films which flout conventions and subvert tradition, but it all has to serve a purpose. When I watch Lynch's films, I see all atmosphere and no substance. I see absurdity and surrealism for its own sake, and boundary-pushing for its own sake. Usually it all adds up to very little.

Again, it's all subjective. What you don't see in Lynch, I do. What 'purpose' are you talking about? What constitutes purpose for you in film and why is it so bad that Lynch made atmosphere one of his main purposes? It's just another way to make film.

[Quango]

What I meant was going into a film objectively without any biases. In other words, you don't go see a film when you know you're not a fan of the director or in case of Bruno for example because it's topical, don't go see it if you're easily offended.

Again, it's all subjective. What you don't see in Lynch, I do. What 'purpose' are you talking about? What constitutes purpose for you in film and why is it so bad that Lynch made atmosphere one of his main purposes? It's just another way to make film.

I didn't go into Inland Empire disliking Lynch. In fact, you would almost have to have some interest in him to have even heard about the film. But you talked about the "flow of ideas" in the film. That would suffice as purpose to me, but I didn't find any flow. Each scene has a half-realized idea, an access point that leads directly into a brick wall.

It isn't all subjective. We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we accepted that premise. Some movies just suck.

[Demosthenes]

That's not completely true. Lynch finances his own films and has final cut.
1. This isn't true for all of his films.
B. Even in cases where it's true, there are still limitations -- limitations of budget, of technology, of the talent of his collaborators. I'm sure even Lynch himself would acknowledge this. A filmmaker's vision is always going to be compromised to some extent by the time the film gets up on the screen. There is no purity of artistic expression when it comes to such a collaborative medium.

Then why am I engaged? Again, it's all subjective.
Which is exactly why I said that there are always a few pervs who like to watch someone masturbate. That's subjective too.

Nothing about this holds any truth.
Well, obviously I disagree. I've stated why I think the concept of unfettered artistic expression doesn't really apply to the film medium, and I've also stated how I think that unfettered artistic expression is no virtue in and of itself.

What I meant was going into a film objectively without any biases. In other words, you don't go see a film when you know you're not a fan of the director or in case of Bruno for example because it's topical, don't go see it if you're easily offended.
Okay, I understand what you're saying. But I still disagree. A person can watch a Lynch film with a completely open mind and still not appreciate it. I believe that you're being unfair to Lynch's detractors by suggesting that they don't enjoy his work because they're expecting something more accessible or conventional, or because they're biased against Lynch himself for some reason. On the other hand I could as easily propose that the reason you enjoy Lynch's films is because your biased for them. Maybe you expect something profound and innovative, and therefore you project depth and meaning onto the work which others do not see.

Again, it's all subjective. What you don't see in Lynch, I do. What 'purpose' are you talking about? What constitutes purpose for you in film and why is it so bad that Lynch made atmosphere one of his main purposes? It's just another way to make film.
Of course it's all subjective. But that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid and there's no such thing as quality in art.

If that's how you feel -- that all appreciation of art is subjective -- then okay. We disagree on that, but I respect that point-of-view. Although in that case, there's no need for me to explain why I do or don't like a particular work. I can just say, "That's how it affects me. It's subjective."

As for me, I don't feel that way. I believe that some opinions are more justifiable than others. At the very least, I believe that determining the quality of a work of art is possible as long as one has a framework through which one can assess that quality. Creating atmosphere is one aspect to good film making, no doubt. If it's not in the service of telling a story or communicating a larger idea, then I don't see the point of it. Is the point, "Hey look, I can create a creepy atmosphere?" That's neat. But it's not art.

[SirManchester]

I didn't go into Inland Empire disliking Lynch. In fact, you would almost have to have some interest in him to have even heard about the film. But you talked about the "flow of ideas" in the film. That would suffice as purpose to me, but I didn't find any flow. Each scene has a half-realized idea, an access point that leads directly into a brick wall.

It isn't all subjective. We wouldn't have anything to talk about if we accepted that premise. Some movies just suck.

I just can't agree with this. This is the easy way out. How come I found the ideas to be flowing? This doesn't have anything to do with me being a Lynch fan because there's been work of his I disliked or didn't feel that passionate about.

When I'm just doodling in my sketchbook, I get a flow of ideas in my head which lead to more ideas and those influence others and before I know it I've got dozens of pages of these ideas, albeit lose they're raw and there's something interesting about that compared to finalized pieces if you ask other illustrators because there's something natural about them. Those dozen pages by themselves become a larger whole connected by that first idea and in a larger part the theme is looseness, crudeness and it's just as important and engaging than something more finalized and packaged.



1. This isn't true for all of his films.
B. Even in cases where it's true, there are still limitations -- limitations of budget, of technology, of the talent of his collaborators. I'm sure even Lynch himself would acknowledge this. A filmmaker's vision is always going to be compromised to some extent by the time the film gets up on the screen. There is no purity of artistic expression when it comes to such a collaborative medium.

No it's not true for all his film but it is for Inland Empire and if you ask him, it's the most ideal for him and I'm certain for every other director. Fortunately for him he's build a career where he can now afford, to a degree to do this. The nature of the business still doesn't allow you if you're not established.

Also, Lynch is slowly moving away from those limitations. He's found Film to be a huge hinderance to his vision, which is why he adopted digital and claimed he will not go back to Film. He's worked in a comfort zone unlike he's ever worked in. He shot a short with Laura Dern, then a month later had an idea related, shot that and it became a process like I described above with sketches. It's working without time restrictions and without a definitive budget and for Inland Empire he didn't use a huge budget. Ideally filmmakers or those who truly love and want to remain in the medium look for ways to move past those limitations or find ways to deal with them and minimize them to the extent where they don't influence or affect a final and sincere vision. You can say the same about every other form of art.


Which is exactly why I said that there are always a few pervs who like to watch someone masturbate. That's subjective too.


Well done. Here's a lollipop.



Well, obviously I disagree. I've stated why I think the concept of unfettered artistic expression doesn't really apply to the film medium, and I've also stated how I think that unfettered artistic expression is no virtue in and of itself.

That idea inherently doesn't apply to any form of art. Even if you want to draw you still need to buy money for pencil and paper. But that doesn't mean it will destroy or alter your vision if you have one. If you think of it as a hinderance then it will be a hinderance. It's all about putting yourself in a completely creative space 100% and let nothing else move you out of it.

Okay, I understand what you're saying. But I still disagree. A person can watch a Lynch film with a completely open mind and still not appreciate it. I believe that you're being unfair to Lynch's detractors by suggesting that they don't enjoy his work because they're expecting something more accessible or conventional, or because they're biased against Lynch himself for some reason. On the other hand I could as easily propose that the reason you enjoy Lynch's films is because your biased for them. Maybe you expect something profound and innovative, and therefore you project depth and meaning onto the work which others do not see.

Like I said there's Lynch work I don't particularly like as much. And when I hear things like 'half-realized idea' and 'mastubatory cinema' it's difficult for me to take a Lynch detractor seriously. Those are definitive statements that you need viable proof to make an argument for. Simply thinking something is not fully realized is not enough to reach that kind of conclusion.

Also the last part of your paragraph, there's some truth to that. Art is about us projecting ourselves onto it and that's why it takes on different forms of meaning. It's about an extension of ourselves that sees something and recognizes it as part of our own being. You're proving my point because it's exactly that - subjective. We attach different meanings to something because we really really believe it is meaningful. And Lynch has NEVER claimed otherwise. He always stresses that he doesn't want to explain or talk about his films because they lend themselves to exactly this type of reaction.

Isn't everybody biased when we like something? You like Lilo and Stitch more than me. Why? Because a part of you feels more attached to whatever entity your head interprets the film to be.


Of course it's all subjective. But that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid and there's no such thing as quality in art.

Who said anything about quality?

If that's how you feel -- that all appreciation of art is subjective -- then okay. We disagree on that, but I respect that point-of-view. Although in that case, there's no need for me to explain why I do or don't like a particular work. I can just say, "That's how it affects me. It's subjective."

I can go into the possible psychological reasons why I like Lynch more than somebody else, but this is a public forum and I don't want to make this personal. It goes back to my last paragraph about one seeing and recognizing an extension of oneself in a film. That's possibly why we attach a preference to a piece of art. And I've only used this point to explain why I like Lynch. I've not used it to prove why he may or may not be a superior artist or filmmaker.

As for me, I don't feel that way. I believe that some opinions are more justifiable than others. At the very least, I believe that determining the quality of a work of art is possible as long as one has a framework through which one can assess that quality. Creating atmosphere is one aspect to good film making, no doubt. If it's not in the service of telling a story or communicating a larger idea, then I don't see the point of it. Is the point, "Hey look, I can create a creepy atmosphere?" That's neat. But it's not art.

It's a shame you only see Lynch for atmosphere (through sound, music, editing, etc) and you don't see how that is the narrative and the larger idea. But to each his own.

[riverplate]

Of course it's all subjective. But that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid and there's no such thing as quality in art.

If that's how you feel -- that all appreciation of art is subjective -- then okay. We disagree on that, but I respect that point-of-view. Although in that case, there's no need for me to explain why I do or don't like a particular work. I can just say, "That's how it affects me. It's subjective."

As for me, I don't feel that way. I believe that some opinions are more justifiable than others. At the very least, I believe that determining the quality of a work of art is possible as long as one has a framework through which one can assess that quality. Creating atmosphere is one aspect to good film making, no doubt. If it's not in the service of telling a story or communicating a larger idea, then I don't see the point of it. Is the point, "Hey look, I can create a creepy atmosphere?" That's neat. But it's not art.

Repped, especially for what is bolded.

[Demosthenes]

No it's not true for all his film but it is for Inland Empire and if you ask him, it's the most ideal for him and I'm certain for every other director. Fortunately for him he's build a career where he can now afford, to a degree to do this. The nature of the business still doesn't allow you if you're not established.

Also, Lynch is slowly moving away from those limitations. He's found Film to be a huge hinderance to his vision, which is why he adopted digital and claimed he will not go back to Film. He's worked in a comfort zone unlike he's ever worked in. He shot a short with Laura Dern, then a month later had an idea related, shot that and it became a process like I described above with sketches. It's working without time restrictions and without a definitive budget and for Inland Empire he didn't use a huge budget. Ideally filmmakers or those who truly love and want to remain in the medium look for ways to move past those limitations or find ways to deal with them and minimize them to the extent where they don't influence or affect a final and sincere vision. You can say the same about every other form of art.

That idea inherently doesn't apply to any form of art. Even if you want to draw you still need to buy money for pencil and paper. But that doesn't mean it will destroy or alter your vision if you have one. If you think of it as a hinderance then it will be a hinderance. It's all about putting yourself in a completely creative space 100% and let nothing else move you out of it.

I can't speak to Inland Empire because I haven't seen it. But what you're saying makes me wonder if you've ever made or tried to make a film yourself? The limitation of needing money to buy paper and pencils simply does not compare to the limitations intrinsic to making a film. It's a nice ideal, the thought of a sincere vision making it to the screen unadulterated. But that is rarely what film ever is. That's one reason why I reject auterism and the cult of director worship. Now, if David Lynch has managed to find ways to exert the amount of control you say he has, then great for him. But this is not typical and one cannot look at his oeuvre and say that it is characteristic of his body of work.

Like I said there's Lynch work I don't particularly like as much. And when I hear things like 'half-realized idea' and 'mastubatory cinema' it's difficult for me to take a Lynch detractor seriously. Those are definitive statements that you need viable proof to make an argument for. Simply thinking something is not fully realized is not enough to reach that kind of conclusion.

Also the last part of your paragraph, there's some truth to that. Art is about us projecting ourselves onto it and that's why it takes on different forms of meaning. It's about an extension of ourselves that sees something and recognizes it as part of our own being. You're proving my point because it's exactly that - subjective. We attach different meanings to something because we really really believe it is meaningful. And Lynch has NEVER claimed otherwise. He always stresses that he doesn't want to explain or talk about his films because they lend themselves to exactly this type of reaction.

Isn't everybody biased when we like something? You like Lilo and Stitch more than me. Why? Because a part of you feels more attached to whatever entity your head interprets the film to be.

Who said anything about quality?

I can go into the possible psychological reasons why I like Lynch more than somebody else, but this is a public forum and I don't want to make this personal. It goes back to my last paragraph about one seeing and recognizing an extension of oneself in a film. That's possibly why we attach a preference to a piece of art. And I've only used this point to explain why I like Lynch. I've not used it to prove why he may or may not be a superior artist or filmmaker.

It's a shame you only see Lynch for atmosphere (through sound, music, editing, etc) and you don't see how that is the narrative and the larger idea. But to each his own.
As I understand what you are saying, you believe that there is no good art and no bad art. There are no worthwhile frameworks for assessing the quality of a work of art, beyond our individual, personal responses to that work. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that a text has no particular, specific meaning(s). There are only the subjective reactions that we have when viewing the work, and the meanings we project upon it.

As I said before, I respect this point-of-view. But I find it very limiting as a critical approach, and useless when it comes to evaluating much less discussing film.

[Andy Bennett]

The idea of a 'coherent plot' is subjective though.

Not for those of us that like plots, it's not.

Who says everything has to follow the traditional standard of what a coherent plot means? That's what's great about Lynch and others who experiment and push those boundaries - they make us see the same stories in different ways.

How can you have a 'story' without a 'plot'?

I personally don't find Lynch too self indulgent but I completely acknowledge that he's an auteur and I don't like to use that word too much...
That's probably for the best :D

Anyway, without wishing to break up a good argument, can I just suggest that maybe people are simply approaching film-making from different directions.

You like a film to be entertaining in at least some respects but are unconcerned as to whether the film has anything most people would recognise as a storyline whereas others prefer something they can at least follow. In honesty I'm in the second camp but I can see your point to a certain extent.

Am I right in thinking that you seem to consider a films 'atmosphere', for example, as being of equal worth to the plot?

[SirManchester]

I can't speak to Inland Empire because I haven't seen it. But what you're saying makes me wonder if you've ever made or tried to make a film yourself? The limitation of needing money to buy paper and pencils simply does not compare to the limitations intrinsic to making a film. It's a nice ideal, the thought of a sincere vision making it to the screen unadulterated. But that is rarely what film ever is. That's one reason why I reject auterism and the cult of director worship. Now, if David Lynch has managed to find ways to exert the amount of control you say he has, then great for him. But this is not typical and one cannot look at his oeuvre and say that it is characteristic of his body of work.

Yea I actually have, I went to film school. I know the difficulties.

Film is still young, people who are into film and go to film school mainly do it to get into the industry and make money, rarely is it just for the love of the medium. It's more commonly accepted that films are made to make money than anything else. And generally that's understandable and film is unique that way. The whole process you go through, you might as well distribute and market it because it was so laborious. And that's also still the generally accepted method to get into the industry. And Lynch was no different than anyone else he had to scramble and follow the rules because it was the only way he was going to make films and get people to see it. Now he's established and has a fanbase. Also, technology improved. Digital video eliminates so many of the limitations film had. Similarly the editing technology now which even teenagers can posses. So we are going in a direction where film becomes more unfettered and Lynch has embraced that.


As I understand what you are saying, you believe that there is no good art and no bad art. There are no worthwhile frameworks for assessing the quality of a work of art, beyond our individual, personal responses to that work. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that a text has no particular, specific meaning(s). There are only the subjective reactions that we have when viewing the work, and the meanings we project upon it.


Not really. I believe good art or art worth discussing needs to have integrity. And there can certainly be 'bad' art, art that simply doesn't excite or move me. Also when we speak of art, is Rush Hour 3 art? Because I assume that goes without saying is easy enough to assess because its purpose is inherently unartistic.

If you think there are frameworks for assessing the quality of an art work, what are they? That's a completely new and undefined territory. Are they technical-based? For example, shots out of focus, badly timed cuts,etc...


You like a film to be entertaining in at least some respects but are unconcerned as to whether the film has anything most people would recognise as a storyline whereas others prefer something they can at least follow. In honesty I'm in the second camp but I can see your point to a certain extent.

Am I right in thinking that you seem to consider a films 'atmosphere', for example, as being of equal worth to the plot?


Oh noes, more people ganging up. :p

Well, I'm not trying to force Lynch down anyone's throat, for the record.

And for the bolded part, no absolutely not. Wong Kar-Wai's films are atmospheric but that alone isn't his plot nor is it Lynch's. Lynch uses things like atmosphere and sounds like many directors use traditional narrative techniques to mold plot, is all. There's also a standard narrative happening in his films, obviously but it's usually bby virtue of dream logic and it's erratic and non-linear. But all these elements are used in tandem. try watching a Lynch film on mute, it would be like watching any other film with the frame half cut off.