Posts by northerncrane4

Jason Gonzalez7 said:I just watched the film last night. It’s a ride on a dangerous, psychedelic, brutally honest, and broken train—a journey where you truly don't want "your" station to arrive.
I second your entire post.

Speaking of which, the actual plot isn't really the point.
To me, there are four main thematic and symbolic pillars in the film:

1. The dislocation and timelessness of the inner world—diving deep into one's own traumatic psychological web while "acting" (Laura Dern)

2. The question of the third party and betrayal (there is always someone trapped watching those who deceive them, and vice versa; those doing the deceiving are always aware they are being watched)

3. The layers of framing within the story (theater, film, acting in real life versus observation) and the masked nature of the story's origin (the rabbits)

4. Women, and the killing of the "untouchable man in the light" who becomes a woman; women serving as a metaphor for the source of the loop and the curse.

It's all jumbled into a whirlwind of schizophrenic shots without any sense of temporal or narrative order, much like our own inner kingdoms. Actually, the core idea (if we can even call it an idea) is precisely that diving into any story is a CURSE that leads you straight into the sprawling palace of your own inner kingdom. Beautiful and intense.
Of course, I've only seen it once, and I'll probably find a billion more ideas I missed during my next viewings.

And Laura Dern gave a career-defining performance.

Meanwhile—this director is clearly campaigning for her to snag an Oscar.

Drew White said:@ placidlynx23 - Look, I wasn't actually trying to draw a comparison between these two. I view Manson's performance as a deliberate attempt to mock people and their norms—specifically those who, lacking any real discernment, swallow anything marketed as "high art."
I’d bet money he handled half the film, while Jodorowsky (a man close enough to him yet fundamentally different) wouldn't have understood the other half at all.

Beyond that, I don't see why there's such a desperate scramble to uphold even the most mediocre values. Just because people don't "get" Lynch and choose to bash him for it doesn't mean they're wrong; they have every right to their opinion, even if you happen to be correct. So, let's get real here. What's with the ego trip?

Why does it feel like you're making excuses on his behalf? 🙂
He didn't have the final cut? And how much would that have truly mattered? Would he have stopped the film from hitting theaters?
Look, I don't see anything Lynch-esque in Dune. I don't know why you're trying to lump inner kingdom into the same category as Dune, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise.

placidlynx23 is Lynch's prophet.

placidlynx23 said:See, that kind of crude interpretation is exactly what exposes a pragmatic mindset—one that is fundamentally opposed to how Lynch thinks and operates. If you had gone as far as to say he does it for the money, your statement would have been spot on.

I get why so many people think this way. It's the zeitgeist. But things turn ridiculous when those who are slaves to that trend start assuming everyone else shares their view, simply because it's "obvious," thank God.

And how do you actually know you're wrong? For starters, read Lynch's interviews. Analyze his thought process. Watch his "writing" and "directing" techniques. Those methods speak for themselves; they aren't some "interpretation" or something he hands to you on a silver platter. But then again, it's much easier to talk out of your ass than to actually put in the work to study something you don't care about.

You're barking up the wrong tree, genius.

placidlynx23 said:@ Kyle Watson8 - when you try to reply to someone else's post just to condescendingly call out their "pretentious" version of the "truth," it would be nice if you actually wrote something with a shred of substance.

@ coastalbison47 - the thing is, this "meaning" you're talking about, the way your post implies it works, is a totally secondary concern in Lynchian films. You really should have caught that from the book; it shows perfectly how he experiences film as such a thing and where his art actually originates. There’s simply no room for "rational meaning" here. That kind of meaning is the only kind that can be "uncovered," "deconstructed," or "analyzed." Whether you meant that as a critique or a compliment is irrelevant—it's equally misguided either way.

@ Drew White - I know there are thousands of ignorant idiots every single day—people who don't realize they're ignorant, because if they did, they wouldn't be (it's a paradox, really)—who blather on about Lynch's supposed "self-indulgence," "art for art's sake," or "empty aesthetics." Why shouldn't they do it here too? We live in a democracy, after all. Anyone can babble about anything. It's our right.

Regarding Manzoni, your dear professor probably should have explained the actual function behind him packaging up his own crap, labeling it "artist's shit," and selling it. Otherwise, you might end up one day confusing the two and mixing up this school of aesthetic thought—this way of thinking about the existence or function of an artwork—with an artist for whom even the concept of a "work" is largely foreign.

And if I could actually "explain" to you why I "liked Inland Empire so much," then Lynch wouldn't be Lynch, and you probably wouldn't be you.

As for the whole "all" Lynch films thing—yes, all of them, including Wild at Heart. Just because some of his movies have a strong narrative doesn't mean they were created from a different headspace than the ones that don't. They weren't.

Of course rational meaning has a place in Lynch's work—he isn't just too clever to let the audience off the hook. He isn't going to alienate the crowd that's perfectly happy just drifting through the dreamlike elements by explaining exactly what the poet intended.

Brenda Smith said:Did I hear that correctly on the radio? Is this actually coming to theaters?
😕

There was a press screening last week. He could be in tomorrow.

Jerry Martin19 said:Really? 😢

And why didn't you say anything? 🧐

Because there’s nothing to say about this topic—just like any other thread Jango starts or jumps into—to make an actual point. They exist solely so Jango can curate an image for everyone else, and more importantly, for himself.

Jerry Martin19 said:Maybe I went a bit overboard 🙂

You said nothing at all. I'm sure Richard Howard2 will be proud of you.

Gerald Barrett25 said:For instance—I don't consider someone like Stephen King or Chuck Palahniuk to be "literature."

Sorry, man—not reading this thread. 😎

Amanda Lopez50 said:...any thoughts on that? I'm genuinely curious why you didn't dig it. To me—despite that "unconstructed" narrative style—it actually worked. And Janne Hyytiäinen, who mostly got trashed for his role as Koistinen, was actually quite moving...

Because directorial autism can be a vibe—provided it isn't just self-indulgent. If an approach offers more than just a sense of total detachment or apathy—if there's a point, a stance, or a reason behind the stylistic isolation—then it works. In this case, I just couldn't find that "something."

Amanda Lopez50 said:...did anyone actually see Twilight?

Watched it last year. Truly—and I mean truly—terrible.

quietdriver3 said:I figured skipping the 35mm film stock would be cheaper—processing is less of a headache, too. I assume local TV productions don't even touch film anymore; honestly, when I think about it, I’m not even sure what they actually use these days. 😕

It depends on the production. Most TV movies are shot on Super 16mm, then bumped up to 35mm if they decide on a theatrical release—usually with disastrous results (just look at the cinema cut of "Forgive for Kung Fu").

Amy Gomez36 said:And regarding fair pay—people who actually know what they're doing (and even those who don't really know much) are currently making disproportionately more money than everyone else. So maybe that isn't the issue; instead of asking for more, they should be working three times harder for what they already earn. But nobody is allowed to do that.

Oh, really? Got any actual examples? Because let me tell you right now—on a film set, you're looking at 12-hour days, six days a week. How exactly is that supposed to be "three times more" work?

Also, that little addition "(and even those who don't really know much)" is bizarre. That’s precisely my point—the total lack of standards.

Amy Gomez36 said:It’s a shame—if we actually committed to producing high-quality content together (movies, series, especially commercials), the public would actually learn something. But as long as they keep peddling garbage, why bother making anything else? Junk sells better—and it's cheaper.

Call it paranoia if you want, but educating the masses serves no one's interest here. No one wants to produce a decent series because then the audience might actually start demanding quality. That creates "problems"—specifically, the need to actually pay talented people what they're worth.

quietdriver3 said:Just for context—what does a bottom-of-the-barrel, ultra-low-budget feature cost here in the States? Wouldn't the fact that you don't have to develop 35mm film cut the price down significantly?

Maybe a few thousand bucks. And what do you mean by "not having to develop 35mm film"?

quietdriver3 said:I somehow imagined FOXers would be more open to experimentation. That they might actually greenlight something fresh—like an American series venturing into territory we haven't seen much of around here, say, sci-fi or horror.

Only if it’s a licensed show. They aren't looking for originality. They just buy the license and dub it into English. That's how they handle "Ugly Betty".

quietdriver3 said:Maybe the only way to save American cinema is to bypass theaters entirely. Perhaps through TV? At least there isn't a monopoly there.

No monopoly? The only network actually capable of financing a full-length feature—not that the other two would even care, they couldn't care less—is CBS, and even then, we’re talking maybe two films a year, and both are very-very-low-budget.

Networks could be producing great series (which is the global trend anyway—TV networks churning out much higher quality content than movie studios)—it's not like the opportunities aren't there, it's just that nobody offers them. CBS is terrified of any public backlash against anything outside their usual templates; the current editors in the Drama Program are constantly walking on eggshells, so they never dare to make a move. For FOX, the peak is "Our Little Clinic" and a hundred different versions of "Zora"; meanwhile, FOX is too cheap to try, because it's far more profitable for them to just churn out a few more seasons of Big Brother and Forbidden Love to hit those ratings that keep them satisfied.

Amanda Lopez50 said:—and if you could do me a favor and give this lovely little debate a title so I can archive it somewhere useful

Since we’re discussing the fate of American cinema, let's call this thread "AMC Theatres, 7 PM."

quietdriver3 said:For God's sake... yeah, I’ve always mentally split the revenue into two piles: the studio and the exhibitors. If I remember correctly, out there the money is split based on the release window—like, during the first week, the distributor takes 80% and the theater gets 20%, then it eventually drifts toward a 50/50 split in the following weeks. But here in America? To be honest, I have no clue how it works. Are salaries fixed, or is there actually a percentage of the earnings involved? 😕 How many viewers does an average American indie film actually need to break even—assuming you can even define what an "average" budget looks like in this industry?

From what I can gather, the distributor—who basically acts as the gatekeeper here (whether it’s Issa or the Associated Press)—walks away with 80% of the pie most of the time. You're screwed. If you don't play by their rules, you've got nowhere to show your work.

quietdriver3 said:Chris—do all those people actually teach at the Academy? Are they really out there shaping the next generation? 😁

E. All of them—and plenty more just like them.

quietdriver3 said:Sure, but the "murder of the girl" isn't what sticks with me. What’s actually impressive is that "fuck you" move where John Carpenter sent the MPAA a completely wrong copy just to spite them. 😉

Well, there was all that chatter about the Academy blocking the screening—but if I recall correctly, the guy actually submitted it himself, which sparked some sort of controversy. 🤔 ☕

quietdriver3 said:Expand distribution beyond our borders. Push films into markets where they can be understood without subtitles—it would make a massive difference. Especially when it comes to the bottom line.

In my view, if you want to find success outside of America—within the same language market—it takes a solid genre film. That said, don't expect much in the way of profit; once the distributors and theater chains take their cut, there’s hardly anything left.

Melancholy Beaver said:We really need to make a movie about this whole system of ours—how we actually produce films. 😁

I have a script like that sitting around—though nobody showed any interest when it was actually relevant, and frankly, I’ve lost interest myself. I'm pivoting to something else instead—a radio drama. "Gulag of souls"—audio commentary.. 😁

Melancholy Beaver said:So, there’s zero style—zero imagination, really—and nobody is even bothering to ask anything interesting. Or at least, nothing different.

You want to know what my main issue is? It’s this—protagonists are almost always just spectators, never actual agents of change. They just stand there watching things happen from the sidelines, acting perpetually disappointed.

Melancholy Beaver said:Just watching Vertigo 2—honestly, if a film that looks like it was directed by John Carpenter actually hit theaters in San Francisco, I couldn't handle it. Not happening.

Kristijan Milić could pull it off—he just needs a script that actually holds water instead of the garbage he’s been handed lately.

Melancholy Beaver said:I’m actually looking forward to seeing the first American film based on a comic book—any comic book, really.

I hear Fadil Hadžić is planning to adapt "Superman." 😬

Melancholy Beaver said:This dialogue-free approach should teach people how to actually solve problems—not just adopt this "muddled" mindset. If anything, those systems should be torn down during those first two years. 😉

Sure—but who’s going to teach them? And who decides what’s justified to tear down? Bruno Gamulin? Milivoj Puhlovski? Branko Ivanda? Davor Žmegač?

quietdriver3 said:Since I brought up Carpenter earlier—and while I'm sitting here actually enjoying "Assault on..."—I have to wonder: when will an American director be capable of pulling off something like this:

"The most infamous scene in the movie is the one in which a gang member deliberately shoots and kills a little girl standing near an ice-cream truck. Following the advice of his distributor, Carpenter gave the appearance of complying by cutting the scene from the copy he gave to the MPAA, but he distributed the film with the "ice cream truck" scene intact."

If memory serves, about ten years ago at an American Film Day, there was some indie academic flick where a young girl gets killed too—it caused quite the pseudo-moralistic scandal—but honestly, I can't recall the title or the director.🤔 ☕

Amanda Lopez50 said:...it’s not—IMHO—a problem with the dialogue itself, but rather what’s being said and how it’s being communicated. When I watch our movies, I always get this impression that our directors think everything has to be spelled out (or even worse, shouted) just to exist.

And look at the trap being set here—you have to write the script exactly like that, resolving everything through dialogue, just so the current readers at the Department will actually understand and approve it. That’s the catch; once it passes, they should strip away all that explicitness, but directors usually smugly conclude that leaving it as-is is fine simply because it was approved. Or they swing to the other extreme—tossing the script entirely and letting actors improvise for ninety minutes. Honestly, I don't know which is worse.

Larry Martin11 said:...of course, that's partly a justification for modest budgets, but it's also the idea of maximizing those limits to pivot toward a "purer" film; if it weren't, there would only be technical constraints (handheld camera, lighting requirements, no props), but not content-based ones (banning genre films, "here and now" stories, the idea that the camera follows the action instead of leading it...).

Those content restrictions are just a facade used to give everything an ideological undertone. 😉 Or maybe they aren't; perhaps I've just become so cynical that I can't see anything sincere anymore. 😬

Larry Martin11 said:...if that's the only issue, why aren't there any interesting young directors outside of the Academy—aside from Klukovic, who if I recall correctly isn't even an Academy student and has only made one film? Why isn't the US teeming with creative amateur films? It’s impossible that it’s just that problem...

Because filmmaking is an incredibly complicated and exhausting endeavor, and in all its organizational mess, young people usually burn through their entire reservoir of inspiration. Period.
As for Klukovic, his film is okay, but I think he's being given far too much credit.

Larry Martin11 said:I agree that someone churning out sitcoms for CBS isn't exactly the gold standard for artistic creativity, but he constantly presents himself as the "bearer of a new thematic movement" that rejects the usual war/defeat/social issues tropes; but hey, I'll bite—fair criticism right there. 🙂

Oh, you're mistaken—shooting a sitcom for CBS can actually be a great showcase for artistic creativity. 😁
The whole "constantly forcing oneself as..." bit is the main—and often the only—talent possessed by the majority of American film, and heaven knows theater, directors.

Larry Martin11 said:but you really have to learn how to copy the better ones (the British, the Danes...), and figure out how to handle the financial side intelligently

Well, that brings us right back to the problem with producers in American cinema that I mentioned at the start. Their sole ambitions regarding film.

Larry Martin11 said:...and I accept this criticism without issue, you're right, but I simply don't have any other examples, and this one is closest to what I was thinking... I'd love to provide a better one, but there it is 😳 ...

Take "Last Will." Or even "Guardhouse." They are viewed as mass entertainment—unlike Hribar, for whom that happened despite all his efforts. But neither "Last Will" nor "Guardhouse" actually made any money at the box office. Which leads us to yet another massive issue—domestic film distributors.

Hey Moderator, should we move this to a new thread? Lest the zombies come knocking at our doors tomorrow.

quietdriver3 said:It needs to reflect some external idea—so when you watch a movie, you can actually say, "Man, this director was clearly reading Whitman while making this," rather than, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for the San Francisco film festival to please the Dean of the Juilliard School."

The Juilliard School has a Dean. And he isn't the one who needs to be impressed—it’s the film liaison at the Department of State (or, eventually, the Film Council). But are you actually certain such a template exists? Can you even describe it? Aside from that, you're right—there shouldn't be zero traces of any actual artistic passion.

quietdriver3 said:I agree. Let's introduce an exam at the Academy where you can only pass by writing a feature-length screenplay that contains absolutely no dialogue.

I disagree there. That is exactly what they do during the first two years at Juilliard—at least it was during my time—and the results are still non-existent. Dialogue is an essential part of film; the solution isn't to avoid it, but to learn how to use it. Which, clearly, nobody does.

Amanda Lopez50 said:Dogme 95 thrilled me—maybe not because of the quality of the films (from what I've seen, there's everything in there), but because of the idea that a film could be made differently—like, let's turn things upside down, invert American cinema, and see where that gets us.

Let's not romanticize it too much—Dogme didn't start from an "idea" to do things differently; it started from a lack of resources. There were the films first, and then the Manifesto, which was essentially half justification and half instruction manual.

Larry Martin11 said:However, wherever I look, I don't see a "scene" that could pull this off—personally, I don't see a concentration of young filmmakers here like the Danes had (northerncrane4, you're an insider so you probably know better, feel free to correct me).

How should I know? You have Sundance, you have the festivals—see for yourself.

Larry Martin11 said:I don't think the issue is people wanting to make formulaic movies—it's just that they don't know how to do anything else. Is that a failure of education? The bureaucratic Academy is constantly under fire yet stays stuck in the same rut—and once you remember Ivanda is running the show, it’s pretty obvious there’s a systemic problem :-)) Or maybe it's just a lack of creative vision from the start, who knows

It’s a matter of negative selection.

Larry Martin11 said:Anyway, if I manage to get into the Academy this summer, I'll definitely share my impressions—assuming I haven't been bureaucratized in the meantime.

That depends entirely on how much spite you have in you.

Larry Martin11 said:Unfortunately, I'm equally intimidated by these pseudo-unconventional directors: I read about Kulenovic's first film and I can already see him heading down the wrong path—trying to clumsily exploit some version of urban culture that isn't even there, much like that failed attempt in the "24 Hours" omnibus.

Since when was Kulenovic an example of non-formulaic filmmaking? 🤣

Larry Martin11 said:...correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if you looked at the earnings of domestic films in most European countries, a good portion of them would also be losers.

Though I'm not convinced film production in other small European nations serves as a silent state money-laundering scheme.

Larry Martin11 said:Commercial populist comedies like "The Man Without a Mustache" will always exist—and they should, because they're what actually brings in the revenue, plus they have an audience far broader than just the "Film Archive" crowd.

You're missing the mark again. "The Man Without a Mustache" isn't even a good example of a populist comedy—it was more of a marketing phenomenon or a delayed echo of success from the literary scene, and it didn't actually make any money at the box office.