Until he can make a decent romantic comedy I'm not interested.

Preferably one with a young girl who discovers she is a princess, and then she has to go through all the royal training... but the funny thing is shes really clumsy!! ha!

Only then would i even consider him a film maker.

I'm serious.

tmidgett wrote:I think hating on him has become sport to an extent.

Eierdiebe wrote:sport, or people coming to their senses.

Calling Lynch bashing 'sport' is very accurate, I think. It's a popular pastime among film snobs. They see Lynch as faux 'art house', not so much because of Lynch's films, but because of the composition of his audiences. They grumble that, "Lynch isn't a real artiste, because a lot of his fans are going to be at a Spielberg movie or a Soderbergh movie the next time they're at a theater, and not seeing the restored print of 'Rules Of The Game' or something". You can find parallels to this attitude in the tribal mentality of avant rock fans. Art that remains exclusive imparts exclusivity on its audience.

clocker bob wrote:You can find parallels to this attitude in the tribal mentality of avant rock fans.

So David Lynch is to Radiohead as John Cassavetes is to Neu!?

Eierdiebe wrote:i think lynch has for better or worse become a lazy, shorthand indicator for quasi-surrealism in the indsutry

This is a criticism of the industry, not Lynch. As far as I can tell, you don't like filmmakers who use Lynch as shorthand for "weird," or who cite him as an influence to seem more esoteric.

This doesn't have anything to do with Lynch or his work. Especially since Lynch primarily works outside the industry, or at least at its periphery.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Although I liked it the first time I saw it, I watched Mulholland Drive again last night, and it blew me away. Unfortunately, it was on LOGO, so lots of the "good parts" were pixillated. Still, that movie is not crap.

Yeah, I started to watch it on LOGO the other night. I thought it was very weird that LOGO (a gay cable station) pixillated parts of the movie. I ended up turning it off, I found it so annoying.

Saw it in the theatre when it first came out. A truly great film.

Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:

clocker bob wrote:You can find parallels to this attitude in the tribal mentality of avant rock fans.

So David Lynch is to Radiohead as John Cassavetes is to Neu!?

Right. Radiohead borrows from Krautrock, but is sneered at by hardcore Krautrock fans. Lynch, to me, is not any less of an original voice than John Cassavetes, but has much more commercial success, because Lynch gives people more of what they want: eroticism, stylized violence, mystery, general weirdness.

i've yet to write a proper response to tim's post. but it seems my above comment about lynch being shorthand for "weird" in the industry has been misconstrued.

allow me to make myself clear.

i am not saying that i tend to pan lynch because his films happen to be embraced by the "faux 'art house'" contingent of filmgoers. what i am saying is that his actual influence on the film world, on the world of filmmakers --- which is exactly what my half-drunk comment was in reference to --- has been a largely trivial one. he has brought surrealism to the mainstream, perhaps, but, sidestepping the issue of whether his films are any good, what does this really mean?

clocker bob wrote:They see Lynch as faux 'art house', not so much because of Lynch's films, but because of the composition of his audiences. They grumble that, "Lynch isn't a real artiste, because a lot of his fans are going to be at a Spielberg movie or a Soderbergh movie the next time they're at a theater

Well, that's not where I get my neutral feelings towards Lynch. I can think of several Spielberg and Soderbergh movies that I love.

Mark Hansen wrote:

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Although I liked it the first time I saw it, I watched Mulholland Drive again last night, and it blew me away. Unfortunately, it was on LOGO, so lots of the "good parts" were pixillated. Still, that movie is not crap.

Yeah, I started to watch it on LOGO the other night. I thought it was very weird that LOGO (a gay cable station) pixillated parts of the movie. I ended up turning it off, I found it so annoying.

I figured they knew I was straight and wanted to thwart my lusting after Naomi Watts's lesbian character.

connor wrote:

clocker bob wrote:They see Lynch as faux 'art house', not so much because of Lynch's films, but because of the composition of his audiences. They grumble that, "Lynch isn't a real artiste, because a lot of his fans are going to be at a Spielberg movie or a Soderbergh movie the next time they're at a theater

Well, that's not where I get my neutral feelings towards Lynch. I can think of several Spielberg and Soderbergh movies that I love.

So can I. What I was getting at is that because a lot of Lynch fans have tastes that crossover into mainstream 'audience pleasers', that corrupts Lynch as an art house icon, in the eyes of film snobs. He is tainted by his popularity, because the snobs think that if the rabble occasionally like Lynch, that affirms their opinion that Lynch panders to a middle brow audience.