I want to append a Waffle Factor of 6 to my NOT CRAP vote, largely for Wild at Heart, which I hadn't seen in many years when I made my initial post to this thread. My god, that is one of the most grating, insipid movies I've ever seen. Terrible, terrible movie.

Inland Empire did not do much for me.

I don't care about defending my enjoyment of David Lynch's movies to pompous "film snobs," but I'm also not willing to dismiss him because of his irritating fanbase.

I bristle at the seemingly prevailing assumption that if someone enjoys Lynch's movies, it's only because they only have the basest knowledge of and taste in movies.

placeholder wrote:I bristle at the seemingly prevailing assumption that if someone enjoys Lynch's movies, it's only because they only have the basest knowledge of and taste in movies.

For what it's worth...I know a fair number of people that have highly informed taste in film who appreciate Lynch's movies.

This friend of mine who owns a video store chock full of arcane and canonically revered/historically significant titles, for instance - he's a pretty big Lynch fan, and he's got a lot to choose from and good taste to boot.


I do feel though that Lynch is a fairly half-assed artist and that this often goes unnoticed by people who haven't had a lot of exposure to world cinema, or viewers who don't hold directors to particularly high aesthetic standards. I feel like Lynch isn't really held accountable for the poor creative choices he makes.

Dave/Eksvplot wrote:I do feel though that Lynch is a fairly half-assed artist and that this often goes unnoticed by people who haven't had a lot of exposure to world cinema, or viewers who don't hold directors to particularly high aesthetic standards. I feel like Lynch isn't really held accountable for the poor creative choices he makes.

I don't know Dave, I think (or would like to think) that I and friends who also love a lot of Lynch films have had a reasonably broad exposure to international cinema. This sort of argument does lead to accusations of snobbery, I'm afraid.

I think that I get where you're coming from on the "half-assed" and "poor creative choices" points, but I also disagree - respectfully! There are a number of Lynch pieces that I think are deeply flawed ("Wild at Heart", "Fire Walk with Me", a fair chunk of "Twin Peaks", "Dune", "Eraserhead" and "The Straight Story"). At least in my case I have disagreed with a fair few of his decisions.

His approach is unique and I can understand how it is not to the taste of many. He has his own themes and images that he repeatedly returns to, and he appears to work predominantly by instinct, rather than plan. I had an interesting chat with Cranius a while back in which he pointed out that Lynch's imagery does not fit the model of traditional symbolism: he'll put moments in his film without any idea of what they mean. He has some sort of internal feel for what he thinks as appropriate, and I cautiously put forward that he is not an intellectual artist at all. Rather, he seems to make films that intellectuals often feast on (I'm thinking Zizek here). Which might be why he often disappoints when questioned in person (again, I'm thinking Zizek).

"Inland Empire" is an interesting case, in that from my single viewing I thought that it displayed the best and the worst of his tendencies at the same time. I have the dvd, but have not dared to watch it again - I think that it demands the right mood. This was confirmed by a friend who has seen it three times, loved it the first time, loved it even more the second time, hated it the third time, and has pledged to watch it again. (Bloody masochist.)

Angus Jung made a good point in the Inland Empire thread about Lynch's odd treatment of women in his films. They suffer a lot of brutality. I think that his relationship with women in art is as torturous and uncomfortable as Sam Peckinpah's, to make connection with a contrasting director.

I would also say that he is brilliant.

placeholder wrote:I want to append a Waffle Factor of 6 to my NOT CRAP vote, largely for Wild at Heart, which I hadn't seen in many years when I made my initial post to this thread. My god, that is one of the most grating, insipid movies I've ever seen. Terrible, terrible movie.

Inland Empire did not do much for me.

I don't care about defending my enjoyment of Dsvid Lynch's movies to pompous "film snobs," but I'm also not willing to dismiss him because of his irritating fanbase.

I bristle at the seemingly prevailing assumption that if someone enjoys Lynch's movies, it's only because they only have the basest knowledge of and taste in movies.

Have you seen any of Hiroshi Teshigahara's stuff? I think he would be right up your alley. Criterion released a box set last year.

punch_the_lion wrote:Have you seen any of Hiroshi Teshigahara's stuff? I think he would be right up your alley. Criterion released a box set last year.

This boxset is ESSENTIAL.

sparky wrote:

Dave/Eksvplot wrote:I do feel though that Lynch is a fairly half-assed artist and that this often goes unnoticed by people who haven't had a lot of exposure to world cinema, or viewers who don't hold directors to particularly high aesthetic standards. I feel like Lynch isn't really held accountable for the poor creative choices he makes.

I don't know... This sort of argument does lead to accusations of snobbery, I'm afraid.

But I don't think that what I said above is anymore snobby a statement than saying that Tom Waits is innately more appealing to listeners who haven't already heard and absorbed Captain Beefheart, Harry Partch, and Louis Armstrong.

I wasn't saying that if someone likes Lynch he doesn't know cinema. It's just that I've found that Lynch is readily accepted by a lot of lazy filmgoers, and I don't think this is entirely coincidental.

placeholder wrote:I don't care about defending my enjoyment of Dsvid Lynch's movies to pompous "film snobs," but I'm also not willing to dismiss him because of his irritating fanbase.

I bristle at the seemingly prevailing assumption that if someone enjoys Lynch's movies, it's only because they only have the basest knowledge of and taste in movies.

Who says that? I've lurked around the Criterion forums and most people seem to love him there. I think his movies are very profound, and I love Bergman, Tarkovsky, etc., and I'm certainly not the only one to hold an opinion like this about Lynch's work.

I've also long stopped caring about letting the annoyingness of someone's fanbase influence my perception of an artist. I love Bill Hicks, for example, and I used to be a little disillusioned because of his rabid fans who deify him. But an artist doesn't have any control over what his/her fans are going to think. So I stopped caring over time.

Dave/Eksvplot wrote:

sparky wrote:

Dave/Eksvplot wrote:I do feel though that Lynch is a fairly half-assed artist and that this often goes unnoticed by people who haven't had a lot of exposure to world cinema, or viewers who don't hold directors to particularly high aesthetic standards. I feel like Lynch isn't really held accountable for the poor creative choices he makes.

I don't know... This sort of argument does lead to accusations of snobbery, I'm afraid.

But I don't think that what I said above is anymore snobby a statement than saying that Tom Waits is innately more appealing to listeners who haven't already heard and absorbed Captain Beefheart, Harry Partch, and Louis Armstrong.

I wasn't saying that if someone likes Lynch he doesn't know cinema. It's just that I've found that Lynch is readily accepted by a lot of lazy filmgoers, and I don't think this is entirely coincidental.

I just read this after making my post above. I think you're way off here. I think the Tom Waits comparison is a little off because Lynch has developed a style that's very much independent of anyone else. Sure, there are a plenty other filmmakers who do "dreamlike" stuff, but Lynch has his own unique way of approaching it that's rooted more heavily in the saturated emotions of old Hollywood movies than others who do similar work. That doesn't make it worse, it's just different.

And what lazy choices are you talking about? Would you call someone like Tarkovsky "lazy" because he doesn't bother to explain the things that he's showing? There's a lot about filmmaking that is inherently arbitrary, and it relies on a kind of subconscious response to contextualize it. I think Lynch is one of the best at not imposing his judgment or views and letting the viewer decide how to react to the events onscreen.

sparky wrote:Angus Jung made a good point in the Inland Empire thread about Lynch's odd treatment of women in his films. They suffer a lot of brutality. I think that his relationship with women in art is as torturous and uncomfortable as Sam Peckinpah's, to make connection with a contrasting director.

I would also say that he is brilliant.

I agree with this assessment, but I also believe that the brutality they suffer is very real. I don't believe he's imposing this suffering on them at all. I believe it comes out of a need to accurately portray the kind of suffering they feel. I think with Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire he's become one of the best directors of women out there.

I remember being very upset when someone told me they thought his films were misogynist, because I think that completely misses the point. He shows violence against women as horrible and brutal as it is. It can never be mistaken for a good thing. I think that is much more honest and truthful than the glossed-over violence that's usually shown in movies.

ergo space pig wrote:I think the Tom Waits comparison is a little off because Lynch has developed a style that's very much independent of anyone else.

I didn't mean to imply that Lynch is necessarily derivative.

All I was saying is that my initial statement is no more snobby than the one about Tom Waits (which hopefully most peopel here would agree with).

It's not really a question of originality here, but rather whether Lynch's films are genuinely interesting and engaging, in their own right as well as in the context of world cinema. (I don't think they are in either case.)

ergo space pig wrote:And what lazy choices are you talking about?

Well, for instance, Mullholland Drive seemed very obviously cobbled together. Much of that film is soap-opera-grade-bad. It was no surprise to find out that a good deal of the film was culled from a failed TV pilot. Those opening shots/jumpcuts from behind the limo, for instance, are indeed cringeworthy. As is the "Silencio!" ending, and the cliched send-ups of Hollywood, and... I could rip this fucking film to shreds but it would require me to view it again and I dread the mere notion of doing that.

ergo space pig wrote:Would you call someone like Tarkovsky "lazy" because he doesn't bother to explain the things that he's showing?

Tarkovksy and Lynch couldn't more different. They are operating from disparate expressive traditions. The meaning in Tarkovsky's film is on the surface, whereas Lynch's meaning is the equivalent to a decoder-ring approach to reality. That's why all these people write tomes and tomes about what MD means. Film critic Ray Carney has written about this extensively, and I'll try to track down these articles and post them here.

punch_the_lion wrote:Have you seen any of Hiroshi Teshigahara's stuff? I think he would be right up your alley. Criterion released a box set last year.

Yessir. I love what Teshigahara I've seen: The Face of Another, Antonio Gaudi, and The Woman in the Dunes. I need to pick up that boxset you mentioned, because I've only seen a cut version of The Woman in the Dunes.

ergo space pig wrote:I've also long stopped caring about letting the annoyingness of someone's fanbase influence my perception of an artist.

Si, si. I agree with this:

placeholder wrote:I'm also not willing to dismiss him because of his irritating fanbase.