VeeshanVault

anyone ever seen Maholland Drive and are able to explain it to me? i watched it and im left in the .. what the hell happend phase

Watch it again
and again
and again

untill you figure it out, its worth it. I was pissed that someone told me even before the movie started what COULD be going on for the entire movie. There are a bunch of possibilities.

but the movie is 2 hours and 28 min or somethin long i don't wanna keep sitting though that =-p and its like when u think you have the movie figured out then u can't link this other part of the movie in with what u think is happening so its like all jumbled ... im confused

Do not spend too much time figuring it out. David Lynch pretty much made it like that to fuck with everyone How bout that girl-girl scene eh?

I think Maddox put it best in one of his rants: "There's no deeper meaning in a David Lynch film, because David Lynch is fucking insane."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. He's just some hack who throws a bunch of random shit into the same pot and hopes people will call him a genius because they don't get it.

Millie wrote:I think Maddox put it best in one of his rants: "There's no deeper meaning in a David Lynch film, because David Lynch is fucking insane."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. He's just some hack who throws a bunch of random shit into the same pot and hopes people will call him a genius because they don't get it.

I say the exact same thing about Jackson Pollock's art. People call me uncouth and stupid for it.

Take from that what you will.

kyoukan type-R wrote:

Millie wrote:I think Maddox put it best in one of his rants: "There's no deeper meaning in a David Lynch film, because David Lynch is fucking insane."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. He's just some hack who throws a bunch of random shit into the same pot and hopes people will call him a genius because they don't get it.

I say the exact same thing about Jackson Pollock's art. People call me uncouth and stupid for it.

Take from that what you will.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Nor do I think it's fair for people to criticize your taste in art because of your opinions. But anyhow, I've studied Jackson Pollock's art for years. He's actually capable of producing fairly impressive "standard" art -- which means that he has mastered the basic forms, and so he is able to break them. When Pollock splattered paint on a canvas, it's not because he was just doing it to be random, or because he didn't have the skill to do anything else. He was doing it to express himself in a new and emotionally powerful medium. Surprisingly, you can tell the difference between a Pollock piece and the work of, say, your average kindergartner who uses her paints and canvas the same way.

David Lynch, on the other hand, has yet to convince me that he knows how to direct a movie with a coherent purpose. Until he does, I won't buy into any of his "look at me, I'm so deep" gimmicks. Anyone with a couple tabs of acid, some cameras, and a vivid imagination could do what Lynch is doing. I know I could.

I'm not doubting that Lynch has his occasional moments. He's got plenty of profound and hidden themes in his movies -- he just doesn't know how to string them together. So he just throws them all into one mix. There's no underriding sense of thematic unity or direction. And by "thematic unity," I don't mean to say that his films need a typical Hollywood 'plot' to make sense. I mean that he needs to link his themes and concepts together in a more advanced form than a stream-of-consciousness melange. One idea or trope needs to make sense in relation to another.

I'll give an example of typical Lynchian concept. If you're going to use Native American mythological forms in your movies, you need to be saying something with them. You can't just use them for the hell of it. Much less can you expect to fool everyone into thinking you're so clever, simply for having embedded them in your film.

Any halfway decent film student can make a movie jam-packed with random symbols, concepts, and ideas. It takes a true genius to make a film where such constructs make sense and can be interpreted in a meaningful way. Until proven otherwise, Lynch is no such genius.

Millie, allow me to play devil's advocate for a momment.

I've studied David Lynch's films for years. He's actually capable of producing fairly impressive "standard" movies -- which means that he has mastered the basic forms, and so he is able to break them. When Lynch makes a movie that is incomprehensible, it's not because he was just doing it to be random, or because he didn't have the skill to do anything else. He was doing it to express himself in a new and emotionally powerful medium. Surprisingly, you can tell the difference between a Lynch movie and the work of, say, your average college film student who uses their camera and film the same way.

---It all comes down to taste. Pollock is no more an artist than the kid down the street when it comes to the basics. It's all perspective and what you and others choose to make of it.

I'm surprised at you Millie, you usually have intelligent things to say...

Are you telling me you don't get "Blue Velvet", "Dune", "The Straight Story", "The Elephant Man" or "Wild at Heart"? Something in these films too difficult too grasp? I don't buy that.

He's not insane. He's a really funny, insightful guy, and an excellent tipper (my brush with fame).

Toshira wrote:I'm surprised at you Millie, you usually have intelligent things to say...

Are you telling me you don't get "Blue Velvet", "Dune", "The Straight Story", "The Elephant Man" or "Wild at Heart"? Something in these films too difficult too grasp? I don't buy that.

He's not insane. He's a really funny, insightful guy, and an excellent tipper (my brush with fame).

I'm glad you find that I have intelligent things to say, but criticizing my opinions here does not give you the right to label them unintelligent. You may disagree with them, and that's fine. But by implying that anything you disagree with is not "intelligent," you're making a ridiculously self-centered claim about value, subjectivity, and art.

Anyway...

I never much cared for his version of "Dune" (the book blows the movie out of the water). "Blue Velvet," "The Elephant Man," and "Wild At Heart" were sub-standard at best (in my opinion...but then, when discussing all of this, what isn't a matter of opinion?). Of the movies you mentioned, "The Straight Story" is the only one I found halfway impressive.

However, Lynch's efforts with such films and shows as "Lost Highway," "Twin Peaks," and "Mulholland Drive" have left me wondering just what part of his sanity he appears to have lost. What bothers me especially is the way critics seem to gush over these random compilations of symbolism and obtuse storytelling as if they were gifts from Jesus himself. "Oooh, look! There are random midgets crawling around and saying stuff. This must be genius...I think! Err...yes, it has to be!"

Just because something is hard to grasp doesn't mean it is "deep," or even "good." Sure, there are plenty of intelligent films that make little to no sense on the surface; Lynch's disjointed meanderings, however, are not such films.

David Lynch himself has even made claims to this effect -- that he is, in fact, simply trying to fuck with people. When I dig up the quote and article, I'll post it here.

I'm glad you find that I have intelligent things to say, but criticizing my opinions here does not give you the right to label them unintelligent. You may disagree with them, and that's fine. But by implying that anything you disagree with is not "intelligent," you're making a ridiculously self-centered claim about value, subjectivity, and art.

I apologize for my wording. It was not meant to be a direct attack at you in any way. Quite the opposite. I value your opions about film as an insightful person (hence my posts on the FoH boards under your section), however, I just found it out of character for you to so flatly go along with the quote that "[David Lynch is] just some hack who throws a bunch of random shit into the same pot and hopes people will call him a genius because they don't get it."

Like them or not, several of his films are easily comprehensible. As for taste well, i think "Blue Velvet" is beautifully photographed, but that's me. And I certainly agree about Dune. That book is so good, so realistic, that you need a glass of water next to you when reading it. Lynch's version of it is terrible.

break up this love fest!

Winnow sucks

Call me Daddy. Don't you fucking look at me!!!

Affleck was the BOMB in Phantom!

go frollick!

Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive are certainly strange and confusing, but that is as intended. Lynch "paints" his movies. More power to him for breaking the Hollywood Mold and giving us something to think about (hence this thread, eh?)

As for me, I dig all of his work, especially the Twin Peaks series

Twin Peaks = the shit

The speech when Miguel Ferrer (Agent Rosenfield) gives Sheerif Truman his outlook on how he lives his life is classic.

Amen Toshira Also, who can forget David Duchovney as a transvestite DEA agent

My bro Rooknight bought the 1st season for me on DVD. The second season is due out next year at some point Good stuff! I highly recommend. There are also many interviews, etc on DVD set.

Twin Peaks hot chick list:

Madchen Amick(Shelly)
Lara Flynn Boyle(Donna)
Sherylin Finn[sp](Audrey)
Sheryl Lee(Laura Palmer/Maddie Palmer)
Heather Graham(Annie)


Oh yeah! ;P