David Lynch

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#26 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:45 pm

Fletch wrote:It also perfectly illustrates Lynch's love-hate relationship with America. The film is filled with beautifully shot iconography of Americana, like big convertible automobiles from the ‘50s and rock ‘n' roll music from the period. And then you've got Sailor and Lula as loving (albeit tweaked) homages to Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe. In fact, Lynch has said that Wild at Heart is the film he wished Elvis had made.
Don't forget the whole Wizard of Oz parallel, which is perhaps the most striking example of what you've adumbrated here. And you're spot on: Lynch, as with most of his other films, takes a topical and glitzy Americana sensibility and then probes right to the very seedy and surreal underbelly of it (think opening shot of Blue Velvet). Lynch very astutely senses the inherent artifice and surrealism in Americana, and pairs its sensibility against the darkness it suggests. Because Wild at Heart is so over-the-top, this theme in particular stands out more obviously.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#27 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:23 pm

And what I also find interesting about Lynch's work is the real push-pull of his love for Americana against his European sensibilities. Wild at Heart has all this pop culture American iconography with references to Oz, Elvis, etc. but with graphic depictions of sex and violence, often intertwining them (as with the execution of Johnny Farragut). I also think of the European-style furniture in Dorothy Vallens' apartment juxtaposed with the all-American, white picket fence look of Lumberton.

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#28 Post by kinjitsu » Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:53 pm


User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#29 Post by Michael » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:00 pm

WHOOOAAAA. 20th year anniversary! It's been that long?! Geez, I remember watching Blue Velvet like it was yesterday! Would love to see Blue Velvet in its complete glory again.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#30 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:50 am

Sweet! I sure hope that print hits the road. I'm sad to say that I've never seen this movie on the big screen. d'oh!

che-etienne
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:18 pm

#31 Post by che-etienne » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:33 am

It's too bad it won't make an international tour.

I'd love to see it again the way its meant to be, since I just watched a clearly very aged-source dvd copy of it. Just saw this film for the first time today.

I can say first off that I greatly admire it. A wonderful film about textures and layers and the energy hidden beneath the surface. Still, on a visceral or emotional level, perhaps it was too off-beat to really effect me completely, especially with its humor, which I'm sure some fans must love about this film. I guess I just find it too under-cooked in a way. I was hoping for some sharper dialogue. But I want to see it again before I completely judge it, as I can see why a lot of the dialogue is written with that mundane quality.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#32 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:11 am

che-etienne wrote:I was hoping for some sharper dialogue. But I want to see it again before I completely judge it, as I can see why a lot of the dialogue is written with that mundane quality.
It is but what makes a lot of the dialogue work so well -- at least the funny bits -- is how it is delivered. For example, when Jeffrey brings the severed ear to Detective Williams and he replies, "Yes, that's a human ear alright," is funny because of the way he says it -- so matter-of-factly, like he sees this all the time or something.

Some of the best dialogue, because it is all so surreal and scary and bizarre, is said at Ben's place when Frank takes Jeffrey on a joyride. I love watching this scene and seeing how Frank's cronies react to what he's doing. And then, Jack Nance gets that great moment where he goes up to Jeffrey and claps his hands and says, "I'm Paul." That bit gets me every time.

Anonymous

#33 Post by Anonymous » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:21 pm

obloquy wrote:Do you realize that Manson is actually in the film, along with other band members? If I'm not mistaken, the scenes he's in have his music playing over them as well. That's all I'm referring to. It just pulled me out of the film (which I was thoroughly engrossed in up to that point) to see a corny shock-rocker being used for shock-effect.
Indeed. I think the whole film is Lynch showing off his incredible ability to manipulate. Look at the scene where the blonde Patricia Arquette is having sex with the protagonist (I think it's Balthazar Getty) on the beach -- it's an incredibly erotic scene with both the guy and us enjoying . . . and then, all of a sudden, she pulls back and mocks him (and us, by extension) and says he'll never get her. This is precisely the feeling the audience gets during/at the end of most of the tension-filled set pieces in the film -- we are so engrossed because of the tension and the atmosphere, and all of a sudden, we are pulled back with something ironic (like the Rammstein tune when Getty goes into that room). Lynch is being smug and showing us how completely in command of his craft he is.

I don't think this is a bad film because of that, though. It is just not the (straight forward) emotional experience people, who want to ignore the distancing devices, claim it is. It works as an exceptional showcase of Lynch's manipulative skills, and I enjoy it on that level. I like this film a lot (my #2 Lynch), but I don't think this one works completely. I think only Mulholland Dr. (my clear favourite, and the film Lynch has been working towards his whole career) transcends its construction -- we know that we are watching a film, and Lynch doesn't try to be insincere. But, I think the film (MD) argues successfully that just because something is clearly a fake, that doesn't mean it can't affect us emotionally -- and it argues by making this the main theme of the film itself.

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#34 Post by toiletduck! » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:09 am

Great reading, Viv... I've always found Mulholland Drive a bit unsettling for that very reason. I can almost see Lynch sneering down at me as he pulls all the strings, and yet the film hits just as hard despite that fact. I struggled against MD for the longest time, not wanting to be 'played' by Lynch. I'm just now slowly starting to give in, to allow for the fact that he's playing me nonetheless, so I might as well enjoy it. To me MD seems to be a work of art that has no real purpose -- which, in turn, becomes its raison d'etre.

-Toilet Dcuk

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#35 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:45 pm

Viv wrote:Indeed. I think the whole film is Lynch showing off his incredible ability to manipulate. Look at the scene where the blonde Patricia Arquette is having sex with the protagonist (I think it's Balthazar Getty) on the beach -- it's an incredibly erotic scene with both the guy and us enjoying . . . and then, all of a sudden, she pulls back and mocks him (and us, by extension) and says he'll never get her. This is precisely the feeling the audience gets during/at the end of most of the tension-filled set pieces in the film -- we are so engrossed because of the tension and the atmosphere, and all of a sudden, we are pulled back with something ironic (like the Rammstein tune when Getty goes into that room). Lynch is being smug and showing us how completely in command of his craft he is.
I have never gotten that impression watching this movie nor reading any interviews with Lynch. I really don't think he's being smug but rather subverting our expectations during this scene. Just because Lynch is a skilled filmmaker doesn't mean he's rubbing our face in it, like, say, Quentin Tarantino who is one of the worst offenders of that sort of schtick.

Lost Highway is kinda like Eyes Wide Shut in the sense that it features a male protagonist who is constantly thwarted sexually by the women in his life. Fred has trouble getting it up with Renee and also suspects that she's having an affair with another man and kills her out of frustration but then enters a fugue state where he imagines himself as a virile young man who has no trouble with the ladies, that is, until he meets Renee's doppleganger, Alice, who frustrates him yet again and for his sins he's trapped in an endless loop on the lost highway of the film's title.

All of Lynch's technical virtuousity isn't to show off but rather to establish a certain atmosphere and create a world that immerses the viewer totally through sound and visuals -- something that he is a master at.

At times, Lynch does get in-your-face with his imagery -- especially with Wild at Heart -- but I have always felt that it was for a specific purpose or effect and not just to show off.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#36 Post by Lino » Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:44 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:Lost Highway is kinda like Eyes Wide Shut in the sense that it features a male protagonist who is constantly thwarted sexually by the women in his life. Fred has trouble getting it up with Renee and also suspects that she's having an affair with another man and kills her out of frustration but then enters a fugue state where he imagines himself as a virile young man who has no trouble with the ladies, that is, until he meets Renee's doppleganger, Alice, who frustrates him yet again and for his sins he's trapped in an endless loop on the lost highway of the film's title.
Touche! You have been doing your homework! Actually, I didn't like Lost Highway the first time I saw it but then as I started putting the pieces together, it all fell into place. And what a glorious puzzle of a movie it is! And deceptively simple too.

Mulholland Dr. is on TV right now and midway through it just occurred to me that were Lynch to make a kind of trilogy involving Mulholland Drive and the upcoming INLAND EMPIRE, what would be the next logical title? Both of them are names of streets/areas and if you placed them on a map and tried to draw a perfect triangle, what would be the next one?

Just brainstorming in here for a bit...

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#37 Post by Matt » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:44 pm

Annie Mall wrote:Mulholland Dr. is on TV right now and midway through it just occurred to me that were Lynch to make a kind of trilogy involving Mulholland Drive and the upcoming INLAND EMPIRE, what would be the next logical title?
Compton.

Anonymous

#38 Post by Anonymous » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:33 pm

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:I have never gotten that impression watching this movie nor reading any interviews with Lynch. I really don't think he's being smug but rather subverting our expectations during this scene. Just because Lynch is a skilled filmmaker doesn't mean he's rubbing our face in it, like, say, Quentin Tarantino who is one of the worst offenders of that sort of schtick.

Lost Highway is kinda like Eyes Wide Shut in the sense that it features a male protagonist who is constantly thwarted sexually by the women in his life. Fred has trouble getting it up with Renee and also suspects that she's having an affair with another man and kills her out of frustration but then enters a fugue state where he imagines himself as a virile young man who has no trouble with the ladies, that is, until he meets Renee's doppleganger, Alice, who frustrates him yet again and for his sins he's trapped in an endless loop on the lost highway of the film's title.

All of Lynch's technical virtuousity isn't to show off but rather to establish a certain atmosphere and create a world that immerses the viewer totally through sound and visuals -- something that he is a master at.

At times, Lynch does get in-your-face with his imagery -- especially with Wild at Heart -- but I have always felt that it was for a specific purpose or effect and not just to show off.
Yeah, you've described the plot of Lost Highway, but I don't agree that the style of the film serves solely to express the main character's state of mind. (Although, I'll gladly admit that, as I've implied before, that seems to be the popular opinion among those who are into Lynch.) Lynch is always seen as an intuitive filmmaker who films whatever he feels rather than sets out to manipulate and be smug -- and this could possibly be true to a certain extent; he does actually love some of the things he can be thought of as making fun of (although not while being totally unaware of the irony), many things that belong to the 50s -- but I don't believe that he's spontaneity personified and that the construction is not visible or serves the (conventional) story alone. I'd say he is aware of what he's doing and how he's playing with the audience, rather than being intuitive alone.

I've not seen the film yet, but I've seen someone on another board comment on Bergman's The Magician and make a connection between Lynch and Bergman (both of them being this poster's favourite directors) -- both of them love the medium, and their films do contain (or are intended to contain) emotional honesty, but at the same time, are also aware of the artifice and the fact that everything is fake after all, and so, accept their positions as (and are happy with being) some kind of cinematic magicians who can draw in their viewers and make them connect with what is on the screen. My view is, Bergman is far more skilled at drawing in viewers than Lynch, which is why I've always been emotionally affected by Bergman's films inspite of them containing certain distancing devices. Lynch, for me, succeeded fully only with Mulholland Dr. I've enjoyed his other films to one degree or the other (ranging from "average" to "great"), nevertheless.

As for Tarantino, I don't necessarily think he has any great skill to show off. I like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction (for different reasons), but he doesn't always draw me in, and certainly doesn't succeed in "playing with me".
Last edited by Anonymous on Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous

#39 Post by Anonymous » Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:56 pm

toiletduck! wrote:Great reading, Viv... I've always found Mulholland Drive a bit unsettling for that very reason. I can almost see Lynch sneering down at me as he pulls all the strings, and yet the film hits just as hard despite that fact. I struggled against MD for the longest time, not wanting to be 'played' by Lynch. I'm just now slowly starting to give in, to allow for the fact that he's playing me nonetheless, so I might as well enjoy it. To me MD seems to be a work of art that has no real purpose -- which, in turn, becomes its raison d'etre.
Yeah, I felt it transcended its artifice and spoke directly (to me, at least) in a certain tragic tone.

I connected with the film only after reading the lyrics of the song "Crying" sung at Club Silencio. Diane kills herself not (merely?) because she feels guilty about having ordered a murder, but because she has come to realise that she could never stop loving Camilla, and now, she can never be with her anymore. The final images (after she shoots herself) are quite touching.

I'm ripping off the following from someone else on the internet, because I could never be as succinct with the wording, but it explains precisely how I feel about it.
(What is Mulholland Dr. about?)

It is about regrets that come too late. It's about living a lie. It's about illusion, the power of the mind to deceive itself, upon which Hollywood and all that it represents was founded.

And ultimately, it's about how all stories must end.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#40 Post by zedz » Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:48 pm

My reading of Mulholland Dr. is strictly linear and logical, if open-ended. Does anybody else have a reading of the film in which everything makes sense on the level of traditional narrative logic?

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#41 Post by zedz » Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:19 am

My reading is much more prosaic than that. I'll formulate it and post it.

Travis
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:35 pm

#42 Post by Travis » Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:32 am


Anonymous

#43 Post by Anonymous » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:17 am

zedz wrote:My reading of Mulholland Dr. is strictly linear and logical, if open-ended. Does anybody else have a reading of the film in which everything makes sense on the level of traditional narrative logic?
Everything does make sense on the level of traditional narrative logic in this film.

A heart-broken and crushed wannabe starlet dreams up an alternate scenario of her life, but her tragic reality seeps into her dream, and ultimately, she has to wake up . . . and snuff it.

User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

#44 Post by dekadetia » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:16 am

The most interesting thing about Mulholland Drive or Lost Highway, and the only thing I am sure is happening in either of them, is that Lynch as a filmmaker is establishing, in two films so far (and I expect he will continue to do so in Inland Empire), a storytelling method wherein character identities shift, split, and converge in order to form multiple-level arcs which can be examined both singlarly and as complements. Tim Lucas, writing about Lost Highway around the time of its release on laserdisc, referred to this method as "dub cinema" (relating it to Barry Adamson's dub track "Something Wicked this Way Comes", which is featured in the movie), a scenario where two or more "films" (here referring to the Fred and Pete sections) are experienced collectively as the film Lost Highway, and the same idea can be applied to Mulholland Drive. What this means, essentially, is that there are countless ways to interpret the juxtaposition of these narrative threads, and it is for this reason, I imagine, that Lynch does not ever clearly define the relationship between Fred and Pete or Betty and Diane.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#45 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:59 am

Viv wrote:Yeah, you've described the plot of Lost Highway, but I don't agree that the style of the film serves solely to express the main character's state of mind. (Although, I'll gladly admit that, as I've implied before, that seems to be the popular opinion among those who are into Lynch.) Lynch is always seen as an intuitive filmmaker who films whatever he feels rather than sets out to manipulate and be smug -- and this could possibly be true to a certain extent; he does actually love some of the things he can be thought of as making fun of (although not while being totally unaware of the irony), many things that belong to the 50s -- but I don't believe that he's spontaneity personified and that the construction is not visible or serves the (conventional) story alone. I'd say he is aware of what he's doing and how he's playing with the audience, rather than being intuitive alone.
Oh sure. I agree but I just don't think he's being smug or even condescending about it. I mean, filmmaking is the manipulation of images for a desired effect and Lynch obviously has an agenda at work and is trying to say something. And he does work on an intuitive level to a certain degree -- many of the core ideas for his films come from what he calls fishing for ideas or meditating. He doesn't really analyze where they come from but when an idea sparks something in his imagination he runs with it.
My view is, Bergman is far more skilled at drawing in viewers than Lynch, which is why I've always been emotionally affected by Bergman's films inspite of them containing certain distancing devices. Lynch, for me, succeeded fully only with Mulholland Dr. I've enjoyed his other films to one degree or the other (ranging from "average" to "great"), nevertheless.
That's fair. For me, it is the complete opposite and Lynch's film affect me emotionally a lot more than Bergman's. Different strokes.

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#46 Post by viciousliar » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:33 am

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:That's fair. For me, it is the complete opposite and Lynch's film affect me emotionally a lot more than Bergman's. Different strokes.
That's the most astonishing statement I've read thus far in this forum. I believe you miss much of Bergman's magic, if you don't comprehend the Swedish dialogue, as I happen to do. Sometimes the subs are WAY off!
I designed the header to possibly provoke some good arguments - to me, Bergman is all Emotion and Mood.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#47 Post by Michael » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:46 am

That's fair. For me, it is the complete opposite and Lynch's film affect me emotionally a lot more than Bergman's. Different strokes.
Hmmm.. have you seen Persona or Cries and Whispers? Even Winter Light creeps the hell out of me more than all the Lynch films put together.

viciousliar
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:12 am

#48 Post by viciousliar » Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:57 am

Winter Light is one of the saddest and most truthful films I ever watched - it left me in a complete state of devastation - like there was no hope left in the world, just shallow values - most typically indentified in Hypocrisy and religion interrupted. This film is SO much stronger than the Oscar-winning Through a Glass Darkly, in my way of thinking.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#49 Post by denti alligator » Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:18 am

Viv wrote:Everything does make sense on the level of traditional narrative logic in this film.

A heart-broken and crushed wannabe starlet dreams up an alternate scenario of her life, but her tragic reality seeps into her dream, and ultimately, she has to wake up . . . and snuff it.
Wonderfully concise! I was thinking about how to "tell the story" last night and just didn't have the patience. You pulled it off beautifully. This is also how I put the narrative together.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#50 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 pm

Michael wrote:Hmmm.. have you seen Persona or Cries and Whispers? Even Winter Light creeps the hell out of me more than all the Lynch films put together.
I dunno what it is about Bergman... I respect the hell out of his movies and think very highly of them but they just don't do much for me and leave me a little cold. As I said, different strokes.

Post Reply