Eierdiebe wrote:do you really believe this? i'm not trying to be mean here, but i honestly wonder, has lynch really paved the way for uniquely weird and/or disturbing filmmakers, or just, perhaps, filmmakers who are weird in the usual, recognizable (commercial) manner (presence of midgets, druggy dislocations, violent flights of fancy, etc.)?

The "weird" elements you mention were not usual or recognizably commercial prior to Lynch's influence. Even this facile oversimplification of Lynch's style supports the point.

i guess my main criticism of his work would be that in terms of sheer content his films strike me as superficial. i'm not sayign there's no value to them, but they don't strike me as particularly insightful or rebellious.

I guess my main criticism of your argument would be that in terms of sheer content your analysis strikes me as superficial. I'm not saying there's no value to it, but it doesn't strike me as particularly insightful or rebellious.

clocker bob wrote:Mainstream moviegoers don't usually mess around with labeling directors as 'auteurs'. If Lynch is receiving that accolade, it's coming from inside the film snob world.

you are wrong. "everday people" may not frequently throw out words like "auteur" but they most certainly discuss their favorite directors with the same degree of reverence.

next time you're at the dentist's office getting teeth pulled to once and for all rid yourself of the cia tracking device that was planted in your mouth while you were drugged unconscious, page through an issue of entertainment weekly or rolling stone. the likes of lynch are often discussed there and with no shortage of superlatives.

clocker bob wrote:I think the film snobs are like indie rock snobs- they react irrationally when their pet directors shed their underground status.

this is such horseshit it's almost offensive. if anything i want my "pet directors" to become MORE well known. then perhaps more people will demand a higher degree of artistry in the films they watch. then perhaps more people will realize that there's nothing esoteric about liking an ozu film.

lars wrote:

i guess my main criticism of his work would be that in terms of sheer content his films strike me as superficial. i'm not sayign there's no value to them, but they don't strike me as particularly insightful or rebellious.

I guess my main criticism of your argument would be that in terms of sheer content your analysis strikes me as superficial. I'm not saying there's no value to it, but it doesn't strike me as particularly insightful or rebellious.

hah! this made me crack a smile.

i'll see if someone down the hall has a lynch dvd that i might be able to watch so that i can provide you with a more specific critique. (i haven't seen mullholland drive so maybe i'll just rent that in the next week or so and tell you what i think.)

you guys are a riot.

Eierdiebe wrote:

lars wrote:

Eierdiebe wrote:he has brought surrealism to the mainstream, perhaps, but, sidestepping the issue of whether his films are any good, what does this really mean?

He has permanently changed the amount and quality of "weirdness" that is acceptable in mainstream TV and movies. This gives other "weird" artists a better shot at getting their work financed, distributed and seen by more people. Ultimately, we get more movies and TV shows created by artists with a unique vision and fewer shitty romantic comedies and other lifeless dreck.

do you really believe this? i'm not trying to be mean here, but i honestly wonder, has lynch really paved the way for uniquely weird and/or disturbing filmmakers, or just, perhaps, filmmakers who are weird in the usual, recognizable (commercial) manner (presence of midgets, druggy dislocations, violent flights of fancy, etc.)?

lars wrote:You have still yet to offer a single specific criticism of Lynch's work.

i guess my main criticism of his work would be that in terms of sheer content his films strike me as superficial. i'm not sayign there's no value to them, but they don't strike me as particularly insightful or rebellious.

Why don't you share with us some directors who create "weird" or "disturbing" works, ya know, not in the commercial manner? You seem to have some expertise in this department that the rest of us are lacking....Seriously, I'm curious.

Thanks,

-Jeremy

oucheh wrote:Why don't you share with us some directors who create "weird" or "disturbing" works, ya know, not in the commercial manner? You seem to have some expertise in this department that the rest of us are lacking....Seriously, I'm curious.

Thanks,

-Jeremy

there's a dvd out there called three extremes which features a short film by one fruit chan called dumplings. it's quite an incredible movie. don't wanna spoil the story for you but let's just say it's not a film you'd wanna screen for your pro-life buddies, in the event you have any.

but when i think of truly unusual or "edgy" films i don't think they necessarily have to be overtly shocking and loaded with transgressive subject matter. in fact (!) often times the presence of such things is symptomatic of films that aren't all that challenging since the viewer is being distanced from any sense of consequence by the indulgent unreality of it all. this is one the problems i had with lost highway, a druggy muddled detour of a film. (strangely enough, the michael haneke movie hidden/cache has an almost identical premise but its careful realiztion and sober overall feel gives it a lot more impact. for me anyway.)

i can provide examples of what i consider to be genuinely weird and/or disturbign films at later point, but right now there are too many people in the kitchen for me to concentrate. for now though, that list i posted a page or so back should have a few good reference points. maybe not disturbign in the salo, oldboy, basie moi, john waters sense, but certainyl challenging and uncommerical, for the most part.

Eierdiebe wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Mainstream moviegoers don't usually mess around with labeling directors as 'auteurs'. If Lynch is receiving that accolade, it's coming from inside the film snob world.

you are wrong. "everday people" may not frequently throw out words like "auteur" but they most certainly discuss their favorite directors with the same degree of reverence.

I don't buy it. The everyday people make their ticket-buying decisions on the stars or on the TV commercials or on their familiarity with the content ( movies from TV shows, sequels, the same style of animation ). The class of people you describe who discuss directors with reverence are not everyday movie fans- they are more firmly planted in the film snob camp.

next time you're at the dentist's office getting teeth pulled to once and for all rid yourself of the cia tracking device that was planted in your mouth while you were drugged unconscious, page through an issue of entertainment weekly or rolling stone. the likes of lynch are often discussed there and with no shortage of superlatives.

Nice ad hominem that I'll ignore. Maybe Lynch is discussed in RS or EW but he is not cover material. Those magazines reserve that for Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts. Show me how much coverage Lynch got in RS or EW for Mulholland Drive, and I'll consider your point.

clocker bob wrote:I think the film snobs are like indie rock snobs- they react irrationally when their pet directors shed their underground status.

this is such horseshit it's almost offensive. if anything i want my "pet directors" to become MORE well known. then perhaps more people will demand a higher degree of artistry in the films they watch. then perhaps more people will realize that there's nothing esoteric about liking an ozu film.

Well, if you think that Ozu could actually *attain* great box office appeal without compromising his artistic vision, you're dreaming. The point being, you and I both know that Ozu is off the radar of the masses for a good reason: his movies demand more from their audiences than the audiences are willing to give. You can lead the mainstream audience to that water all day, but you won't make them drink, not unless you change the water. I take it as a point of pride that I like 'better' movies than the average American, just like the average indie rock fan feels that their appreciation of Arcade Fire or Shellac makes them more sophisticated than the Justin Timberlake fans. Are you prepared to throw away the cachet that film snobbery gives you? That's what you're doing by saying that you want the top ten at the box office to reflect your tastes. I'm not interested in that pipe dream.

clocker bob wrote:

Eierdiebe wrote:you are wrong. "everday people" may not frequently throw out words like "auteur" but they most certainly discuss their favorite directors with the same degree of reverence.

I don't buy it. The everyday people make their ticket-buying decisions on the stars or on the TV commercials or on their familiarity with the content ( movies from TV shows, sequels, the same style of animation ). The class of people you describe who discuss directors with reverence are not everyday movie fans- they are more firmly planted in the film snob camp.

the "class of people" i am talking about is comprised of moviegoers: essentially, people who watch at least two films a week, whether at home or in the theater, with any degree of attentiveness. if you are trying to convince us that only film buffs who frequent mastersofcinema.org have their favorite directors and movies, you are full of shit.

clocker bob wrote:Maybe Lynch is discussed in [Rolling Stone] but he is not cover material.

clocker bob wrote:Well, if you think that Ozu could actually *attain* great box office appeal without compromising his artistic vision, you're dreaming.

Ozu did attain great box office appeal, albeit in Japan.

i must be dreaming again.

clocker bob wrote:The point being, you and I both know that Ozu is off the radar of the masses for a good reason: his movies demand more from their audiences than the audiences are willing to give.

mainstream audiences are only willing to give so little as a result of having been reared on a very narrow cross section of films. the expectations they have are in no small way the result of the studio system's control over the type of films they are able to see in the first place, the type of films that get funded, distributed, promoted, talked about, etc.

of course many people will always tend to regard films as mere diversions for vegging out on, but i don't think it's untenably utopian to assume that they might also like to see something "different" from time to time, given the option.

clocker bob wrote:Are you prepared to throw away the cachet that film snobbery gives you?

sure! i don't need to distinguish myself by the things i like. i'd rather complete the cycle and carve out a niche with things i actually do, like, you know, the stuff i make.

clocker bob wrote:That's what you're doing by saying that you want the top ten at the box office to reflect your tastes.

i'm not saying i want the top ten box office films to reflect my tastes. all i'd like is for there to be more options readily avaialble for people who'd like to see what else has been going on in the world. the growing interest in documentaries, dvds, and web-based programming is evidence that this interest is most definitely there.

clocker bob wrote:I don't buy it. The everyday people make their ticket-buying decisions on the stars or on the TV commercials or on their familiarity with the content ( movies from TV shows, sequels, the same style of animation ). The class of people you describe who discuss directors with reverence are not everyday movie fans- they are more firmly planted in the film snob camp.

Sure, stars and the other things you mention have an effect on many people's ticket-buying behavior, but so do directors. Mention Martin Scorcese to an everyday person. From most, you will get a reaction. Same thing with Quentin Tarantino. Or (years ago) Alfred Hitchcock. In fact, he's a perfect example -- he had some big stars in his films, but they were always "Alfred Hitchcock films" that everyday people were going to see.

There are others, too.

They may not be discussing them as auteurs or with the reverence you allude to, but regular folks definitely go to see films by some directors because of the director. And I think it would be fair to call those directors "auteurs."

Whether or not Lynch is in this class (or even what this detour has to do with the discussion of him or his filmmaking), I'll leave to you all to decide, but I dont have enough disdain for the everyday folks I know to assume that all every one of them want to see is Tom Cruise and a remake of a classic TV show. Some non-filmish folks do, but not all of them.

Eierdiebe wrote:the "class of people" i am talking about is comprised of moviegoers: essentially, people who watch at least two films a week, whether at home or in the theater, with any degree of attentiveness.

Two films a week, week in and week out? Which films? If they're all the 'good' films, then we're talking about filmgoers who are 80% film snob.

if you are trying to convince us that only film buffs who frequent mastersofcinema.org have their favorite directors and movies, you are full of shit.

No, the general audience for movies has favorite directors, but I don't think that they refer to them as auteurs, or even discuss their merits as directors much. They see them as brand names that they can rely on, maybe,but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

clocker bob wrote:Maybe Lynch is discussed in [Rolling Stone] but he is not cover material.

Oh, sure, the guy who does the soundtrack gets the foreground.

clocker bob wrote:Well, if you think that Ozu could actually *attain* great box office appeal without compromising his artistic vision, you're dreaming.

Ozu did attain great box office appeal, albeit in Japan.

i must be dreaming again.

Cut it out. You know we're discussing the American film audience.

clocker bob wrote:The point being, you and I both know that Ozu is off the radar of the masses for a good reason: his movies demand more from their audiences than the audiences are willing to give.

mainstream audiences are only willing to give so little as a result of having been reared on a very narrow cross section of films. the expectations they have are in no small way the result of the studio system's control over the type of films they are able to see in the first place, the type of films that get funded, distributed, promoted, talked about, etc.

The marketplace caters to the customers- do you think there are film buffs inside all the these average filmgoers, waiting to bust out like butterflies? I don't. They get the movies they want and deserve.

of course many people will always tend to regard films as mere diversions for vegging out on, but i don't think it's untenably utopian to assume that they might also like to see something "different" from time to time, given the option.

You can't have it both ways. If the many want mindless razzle dazzle and escapism ( as you say and I agree ), then what is left is called the few. They want different from time to time, sure, but a complete ratio shift? No way.

clocker bob wrote:Are you prepared to throw away the cachet that film snobbery gives you?

sure! i don't need to distinguish myself by the things i like. i'd rather complete the cycle and carve out a niche with things i actually do, like, you know, the stuff i make.

Okay- I can't argue opinions with you.

clocker bob wrote:That's what you're doing by saying that you want the top ten at the box office to reflect your tastes.

i'm not saying i want the top ten box office films to reflect my tastes. all i'd like is for there to be more options readily avaialble for people who'd like to see what else has been going on in the world.

We're both saying that, but that's not the argument we're having. You are optimistic about the general public's appetite for more sophisticated fare, and I think that the existing appetite is sated by what is out there.

clocker bob wrote:

Eierdiebe wrote:the "class of people" i am talking about is comprised of moviegoers: essentially, people who watch at least two films a week, whether at home or in the theater, with any degree of attentiveness.

Two films a week, week in and week out? Which films? If they're all the 'good' films, then we're talking about filmgoers who are 80% film snob.

the issue isn't the quality of the films being watched but rather the simple fact that many non-"film snobs" have spent enough time with various directors' films to be able to choose their own personal favorites.

clocker bob wrote: No, the general audience for movies has favorite directors, but I don't think that they refer to them as auteurs, or even discuss their merits as directors much. They see them as brand names that they can rely on, maybe,but it doesn't go much deeper than that.

you're just getting tangled up in semantics for the sake of your argument. whether or not some george lucas afficianado describes his favorite director as an "auteur" is beside the point. and just because most people's personal favorites aren't your cup of tea it doesn't follow there's no depth to their appreciation. for fuck's sake!

clocker bob wrote:

Eierdiebe wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Maybe Lynch is discussed in [Rolling Stone] but he is not cover material.

Oh, sure, the guy who does the soundtrack gets the foreground.

it's a music magazine and you're hair-splitting. take your whipping like a man next time.

clocker bob wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Well, if you think that Ozu could actually *attain* great box office appeal without compromising his artistic vision, you're dreaming.

Ozu did attain great box office appeal, albeit in Japan.

i must be dreaming again.

Cut it out. You know we're discussing the American film audience.

are we? okay then, what about the reception of frank capra or mike leigh? they've both found considerably large audiences here. it's a wonderful life is a fantastic film, and i'd bet it's been screened more than any other feature (if it's not number one it's gotta be up there). mike leigh's naked is, in my opinion, the single greatest popular film of the last fifteen years, and if i recall correctly it was well received here, better than in england. vera drake was nominated for an oscar. i think herzog's grizzly man found a pretty big audience, seeing as how it was screened on the discovery channel a few weeks after being released on dvd. there are plenty of other examples.

clocker bob wrote: The marketplace caters to the customers- do you think there are film buffs inside all the these average filmgoers, waiting to bust out like butterflies? I don't. They get the movies they want and deserve.

i would say that the so-called average filmgoer is at the very least aware of the existence of interesting films out there which s/he hasn't yet seen or heard about. a surprising number of people know a bad movie when they see one. they may be more willing to sit through certain crap than someone more discriminating, but that doesn't necessarily mean they truly enjoy it or that, even if they do, that's all they'd like to see.

i screen great movies all the time for people with more or less average tastes and despite the rare disaster, the reactions of "everyday people" are quite positive. my dvd collection gets around. it's so slutty!

clocker bob wrote:

Eierdiebe wrote:of course many people will always tend to regard films as mere diversions for vegging out on, but i don't think it's untenably utopian to assume that they might also like to see something "different" from time to time, given the option.

You can't have it both ways. If the many want mindless razzle dazzle and escapism ( as you say and I agree ), then what is left is called the few. They want different from time to time, sure, but a complete ratio shift? No way.

again you are wrong. the only thing perpetuating this ratio you speak of is the entertainment industry and its self-serving agenda. you of all people should understand this what with your predilection for conspiracy theories.

(for more on this subject check out jonathan rosenbaum's movie wars.)

clocker bob wrote:You are optimistic about the general public's appetite for more sophisticated fare, and I think that the existing appetite is sated by what is out there.

the "existing appetite" is not some sort of fixed value. if it was there wouldn't be a criterion collection section at hollywood video. you can try to argue that only "film snobs" would take an interest in the criterion collection, but that's simply untrue. if anything it has become a gateway for the curious.