|
Party Boat posted:After being told that my wife and I had gotten into Twin Peaks, my father in law decided to gift us a Lynch film. That film is kinda like taking all the common themes and concepts from his previous work and indulging them as much as possible. So if you watch it again after the rest of his filmography it will probably be like a whole new experience.
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Infamous Sphere posted:First Lynch film I saw was Mulholland Drive, and I think I was expecting Lynch's style to be more...body horror, like Cronenberg. I guess people had told me his work was nightmarish, and I interpreted nightmarish in the wrong way. Cronenberg tends to ground the horrific in the mundane, whereas Lynch can make anything mundane seem nightmarish. Cromulent posted:I love Lynch, but I've been on the fence and waiting to watch Inland Empire for about 5 years now. There seems to be only two schools of thought from Lynch fans - it's either totally brilliant and horrifying and sticks with you, or it's a complete waste of time "up his own rear end" garbage. The fact that it's so long is probably the biggest barrier to me just sitting down and watching it, what's everyone here think about it? It's a culmination of everything he's worked on his whole career, but in a way that is totally uncompromising and unfiltered through other people's expectations or demands. To me it makes his movies since Twin Peaks seem like they take place all together in one universe. You sorta get to see how they're all telling the same story. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Some of comic author Grant Morrison's work and William Burroughs' Nova trilogy remind me of Lynch (I'm sure the latter influenced him), but with less careful restraint and more trippy drug influences. I could be wrong but I think I read Lynch has never done any psychedelics or anything, and I know he refused to be put on anti-depressants. As for albums, this album is like a distillation of Twin Peaks' and Mulholland Drive's atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zl5vpy__dQ Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I think people mostly hate Fire Walk With Me for being dark and very un-Twin Peaks-y. But I think the quirky humor of the show would have done a disservice to the core story of Laura Palmer's life before her murder. People who haven't seen the show tend to like it a lot more. I think it works because the show tends to show us the town as if from Dale's perspective, and he sees everything as quaint and charming. But the film reminds us that Laura didn't experience the town that way at all, and the centre of the show was still a story about rape and murder. InfiniteZero posted:When you watch or read an interview with Lynch, take a drink whenever he uses the word "abstraction". You'll be drunk a lot. Try that with the word "beautiful".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
I don't want to make this whole post on big black bar, but many spoilers follow.Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:And what was the deal with all the creatures meeting above the convenience store? Demons? Denizens of the Black Lodge? Early on in the show they mention "the place above the convenience store" as well. It does seem to be an extension of the Lodges and the Red Room. Everything associated with those characters is processed, artificial, or Brechtian- the script makes a point of having the table in that room be made of Formica, and of course their emotional nourishment is visualized as creamed corn. The Red Room resembles the backstage of a theatre. Reading about Lynch's philosophy and spiritual beliefs makes it clear to me that his films take everything he finds beautiful and wonderful in his life, especially in his creative process, and flips them to be disturbing and nightmarish. In real life he uses his meditation techniques to find a sense of inner peace, and to access a boundless creativity that he likens to an endless river full of fish (in his book Catching the Big Fish). His characters also enter these interior realms, whether the "dream place" of Mulholland Drive or the Red Room or the haunted folk story in Inland Empire, but instead of beauty and inspiration they confront guilt and horror. Perhaps Lynch is saying that the good and bad ideas all come from the same place: the recesses of the human mind. What Aldous Huxley called "the antipodes" of the mind is his essay about the thin line between awe-inspiring and awful drug trips/spiritual experiences, Heaven and Hell. Just as in the show they talk about the Black Lodge versus a White Lodge, but whenever we actually see the other realm the floor is white and black intermixed. As for the inhabitants, its kept ambiguous who is on whose side (is the giant good, or bad? is the short man who speaks backwards, "the arm", from the white or black lodge?). "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." So I don't think the Red Room denizens are demons. To me they're beings that have evolved to live inside human imagination- inside the idea space, or dream place, that Lynch goes to when he "dives within" using meditation. And, as shown in FWWM, they feed on human emotion (especially, it seems, suffering). These same sorts of figures recur in his other work- the mystery man in Lost Highway, the Phantom in Inland Empire, the homeless person behind Winkies in Mulholland Drive and also that film's blue-haired "Silencio" madame. Note that the lumberjack from the place above the convenience store also appears at the end of Inland Empire, along with a cameo from Laura Elena Herring (as Rita?). Back to Twin Peaks: In the show they kinda say that Leland wasn't really responsible for what he did to Laura, but what the film shows us seems to go back on that. After all he is himself, not posessed by BOB, when conducting his affair with Teresa Banks and finding Laura involved. If the Red Room "demons" really are just ideas that have taken on lives of their own, then they have no power over people unless they're accepted. It's like Inception; you can't force an idea on someone, they have to choose to accept it. It's implied at one point in the show that Leland had a neighbor as a kid named Bob (or Robert, I forget) who may have molested him. Perhaps the killer BOB was his memory of that event manifesting as its own person in the dream space. After all many adult abusers were themselves abused as children. BOB is Leland accepting that outcome as inevitable. I jumped all over the place there but hopefully the core of what I'm trying to get at is clear. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:Something else I find interesting about Lynch's morality is that there are very few gray areas. Good is GOOD and evil is EVIL. There are no roguish, badass antiheroes or villains you root for in spite of yourself. Heroes are uncomplicated, often innocent, sometimes even a bit old-fashioned, and villains are ugly, scary, perverse, sick, unsettling. Cable TV shows partially inspired by Twin Peaks are full of amoral protagonists, but nobody would ever root for BOB, Frank Booth, Bobby Peru, or Robert Blake's Mystery Man. Dale Cooper is kind of a square, but he's OUR square, and we love him for it. I dunno about that. There are characters like BOB who represent platonic evil, but on the other hand what is Blue Velvet about if not rejecting that simplistic Manichean dichotomy of good and evil? For the most part Jeffrey seems uncomplicated, innocent, old-fashioned, but he also is sexually aroused by watching a woman being raped in front of him. Just like Lynch himself seems like a sweet grandfatherly guy but he's spent his entire life devoted to making films about the deepest horrors and evils people can commit. In Twin Peaks Leland, Laura, Bobby (not BOB), and in the end Dale all have the potential for good at points but eventually they succumb to evil through choices of their own. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
ManOfTheYear posted:Is Fire walk With Me good? I really really love the very first Twin Peaks episode but after that it becomes a soap opera so didn't care about it after that. Well the film is definitely not a soap opera. I vastly prefer it to Lost Highway, although I like both.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
kuddles posted:It's why I find the criticisms about David Lynch's work being a bunch of made-up nonsense as incredibly stupid. All his work has actually been pretty simplistic to follow if you bother to pay attention, it's how he tells it that makes it stand out. To add to this, specifically what sets his work apart is that, although the core stories are usually quite simple and grounded, they are shown to us through an entirely subjective point of view. Most films try at least somewhat to create the illusion that the camera simply is showing us objective events in a consistent, literal world but Lynch only lets us see that world from the inside out. I think this philosophy is especially made explicit in the Silencio scene in Mulholland Drive- it doesn't matter that the woman isn't really singing, the audience's subjective emotional experiences are the same. Just as it doesn't matter that the film's story is just a dream, or just a movie, or both. This main theme is also why Lynch uses a lot of conspicuous meta or Brechtian elements, like the really obvious smoke machines after Diane kills herself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Marshal Radisic posted:The more I think about it, the more I understand why ABC passed on the pilot. Twin Peaks at least had the investigation of Laura Palmer's death to act as a catalyst for the action, but with MD the mystery of "Rita" doesn't have that power. It's a whole bunch of seemingly unconnected threads that weave together (maybe) at the very end. Why not? The initial idea for Twin Peaks was that the murder of a young girl led us into the increasingly disconnected threads of the town's underbelly, with Cooper as the outsider encountering it all with us. With the MD pilot the idea was that the attempted murder of "Rita" would lead us into into the increasingly disconnected threads of the Hollywood's underbelly, with Betty in that outsider role. quote:Also, I rewatched MD a few months ago and I realized that Diane's apartment looks like an early iteration of the Rabbit's apartment. Same decor and paint, but different layout. Also one of the rabbits was played by Naomi Watts.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Its not all that aesthetically pleasing but the look of Inland Empire, both cheaply blurred and overly sharp at the same time, is how my dreams always actually look.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:/\/\/\/\/\/\ This is the worst way possible to film a TV series, which requires careful crafting (set-ups, pay-offs, introduction and resolution of storylines etc), pacing and regular cliff-hangers. Ever since DL split from Mary Sweeney, his editor, he has had editorial bloat - which is the main reason IE is a mess. He didn't have anyone on hand to tell him focus and cut down on the multiple strands. Don't forget that he still has Mark Frost as a grounding influence. And its weird to talk about "ever since he split with Sweeney" when only one movie, an improvised one-of-a-kind experiment, falls under that distinction. Anyway True Detective's first season was entirely directed by the same person, and though many fans were vocally disappointed by the ending I haven't seen anyone criticizing the quality of directing overall. Full Battle Rattle posted:Inland empire would have worked much better if he'd cut all of his footage into ~45 minute episodes (adding back in the 'more things that happened' featurette as well). It would be like a box set of the world's strangest TV show, which makes more sense given the Axxon N radio drama point. I'd love to see more fan edits of movies like that, as opposed to another one of Star Wars or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Josef K. Sourdust posted:Fair enough, but part of the reason DL has been financially radioactive as far as studios have been concerned is the way he screwed up IE. MD was a financial and critical success and is still 100% Lynch. You make it sound like he has been trying to make more films all this time but has been unable to get financing, like the problem Jodorowsky was facing for so long. But is that true? As far as I know he had that situation with Ronnie Rocket early in his career, but not post Inland Empire. Wikipedia says he financed much of IE himself, and afterwards he just didn't have a big idea for a new feature film: David Lynch posted:“I haven’t gotten the big idea,” he told 24 Frames this week. “I’ve got some fragments that are coming, but not the big idea.” The director added, "If I got an idea that I fell in love with, I’d go to work tomorrow. I just haven’t.” http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/22/entertainment/la-et-mn-david-lynch-has-no-ideas-for-a-new-film-20120622 Inland Empire was concieved as an improvised project from the beginning. Shouldn't it then be judged as such? Not that we should excuse its flaws off-handedly, just that improv is its medium. That (being improvised) was the constraint that produced the final product.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Section 9 posted:I recently rewatched MD (for probably the 5th or 6th time) with a friend who had never seen anything by Lynch before [Edit: We had just finished watching all of TP and FWWM, so MD was a "here's more Lynch" but it was still pretty new to her]. In trying to explain to her how it was a TV pilot turned into a movie I found the original pilot script. It's pretty interesting to read the script and understand what was added to the movie to complete it. I really think it's pretty amazing how he managed to turn a pilot into a movie, and still make it work. Funny how it still has the line "and now I'm in this dream place" in the original script.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Section 9 posted:I sort of expect that Lynch had a good idea of the framework of the plot for the series in advance, and we would have ended up with something similar to the movie in the end. But that's just a guess. I always assumed the opposite, since I read somewhere that he had no idea how to turn the failed pilot into a film until it suddenly came to him all at once when he was washing the windows of his car (IIRC). Looks like the dream theme was also explicitly set up with the diner scene too, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:David Lynch is the last person who would give you clues to "decode" his films, he's on record saying he would never try to explain to anyone what his films are about. Those aren't really the same though,right? To me the clues, though still ambiguous as always, are actually pointing to pretty important details if you do want to interpret the movie in a concrete way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So you have Leland's description of Bob as an entity that got inside of him during his childhood, and when Bob commits heinous acts like rape and murder, he "takes over" and when he's done Leland can't really remember what happened. That may be literally what's happening, OR its possible Leland was abused as a child, and that trauma festered inside of him and created a side of his personality he refused to ever acknowledge. Its possible both things are equally true. Doesn't he also mention a childhood neighbor named Robert, associated with BOB? That seems to fit with the second take.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:the best guess that I've read is They're her grandparents who told her she wouldn't make it in hollywood.. I thought they were the judges of the Jitterbug competition in Deep River who told her she could be a star someday. That's why we see the Jitterbug competition in the opening of the film, and her on stage with them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:That's weird that something that frustrated him so much would basically be the basis for the movie. Leland being the killer is perfect, and although maybe it would have been better to reveal it later, if I recall correctly the plan was to never reveal the killer, which would prolong the series indefinitely, and that sounds like some walking dead level garbage. Eventually you realize that nothing is ever going to really happen and you stop watching. I hate poo poo like that. I think the idea was just to never have a "this is the one where we finally reveal the killer" episode. It was supposed to become clear slowly over time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
I swear when I first saw the film this scene was in there, but now it seems like its only in the Missing Pieces?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 06:43
|
|
