Posts by placidlynx23

Hannibal Lecter. It’s forced, fake, and just plain hollow.

p.s. Has the word "annoying" actually changed its definition since the last time I heard it used? A good chunk of people in this thread are talking about high-quality cinematic villains and claiming they're great. hmmm.

Donna Hall75 said:What I just quoted comes from some Surrealists, and honestly, that says everything about my response. It’s a mockery of all those self-proclaimed "great analyzers" of the human spirit and body, and frankly, a jab at your arrogant attitude.

The movie is framed as this eye-opening experience, a surge of thought that refuses to stick to the beaten path. Whether someone actually chooses to follow that path or not... well, that's not my concern.

Right, so you're one of those people who moved past actual deep thinking and settled for reading tabloids, all while adopting this fake, wannabe cynical persona toward the world. If only I knew how exactly you thought your post mocked those "great analyzers," I might actually feel better about it. You can't mock something you clearly don't understand.

And I'm criticizing that film because it's just another symbol of that shallow, tabloid-style approach to life. I get that this is how the world works now, but when something like that is packaged and sold as being "eye-opening," I can't help but call it out.

Donna Hall75 said:Look, during my few years studying philosophy, I ran into texts like that. But since I don't waste my time—unlike some people—engaging in pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, verbal masturbation just to claim my views are the only truth, that’s a different story, you know...

"The abstraction of cinematic expression, acting as a language of specificity or an abstraction of the artistic act itself, constitutes, de jure, a form of sacred reification of one's own inferiority and infantilism, regardless of the type of supremacy being asserted through that same language or the level of aspiration involved in discussing it." 🙂 ☕

I'm not sure if the quote below is meant to illustrate what you just said, though I completely disagree with you. It feels like the kind of garbage written by those "pop-philosophers" you probably read just to sound smarter when trying to impress girls. No real philosopher would ever sink to such low spirits. Honestly, I have no idea what that quote has to do with philosophy—and it's hard to say without reading the whole thing, but it sounds like something written by a pretentious columnist rather than someone actually connected to the field. Besides, what does film, or even standalone aesthetics, really have to do with philosophy? I was thinking about serious philosophy, not the scribblings of 20th-century charlatans who are nothing more than irritatingly egotistical hacks lacking any mental discipline. They use "post-modernism" as a convenient excuse to ramble, pushing things like the nonsense you just quoted as actual philosophy. And people, like sheep, just bite at it because they don't know better, then spend their time talking in circles about "philosophy."

To stay on topic—I was specifically thinking of more recent, yet legitimate philosophers or "critical theorists," or whatever you want to call them—people like Marx, Marcuse, Bloch, Horkheimer, Adorno, and so on.

Bambi - a decent enough little flick.

The sequel? Absolute garbage. A total mess.

This one... just a joke.

It’s honestly pretty ironic how people can sit through a two-and-a-half-hour movie that tries to dump massive truths about religion, politics, economics, and metaphysics all at once, and then immediately start lecturing everyone else about "critical thinking" and how people are just "blinded by prejudice." It’s like this widespread Michael Moore syndrome, and frankly, it's laughable.

But hey, everything has its crowd. At the end of the day, nobody has the patience anymore to actually sit down and read dozens upon dozens of serious philosophical texts that deal with these issues properly.

Honestly, the whole concept sounds like absolute garbage to me. Especially those second and third parts.

wiredranger30 said:
If he said the film felt tedious at certain points, or that the camera work didn't sit right with him—so what? Where is the "baselessness" in that?😕 What exactly is unfounded here? Unfounded compared to what?😕

Get a brain.

Amanda Nguyen5 said:😍
I'm telling you again, if he isn't just messing around,

He’s just messing around, man. And honestly? He’s absolutely right.

You're just tossing out a pile of completely misguided and baseless "takes."

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Alright, let's get serious for a second:

👍

🙏 🙏 🙏 👍 👍 👍
Damn, let me think about that for a second.

But seriously, for real though:

Honestly, this thread has been hands down the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this entire forum. Seriously, thanks for the laughs, everyone!
Human stupidity is brilliant in its own way, but honestly, northerncrane4's sarcastic remarks are even more brilliant—even if they’re painfully true.
He shakes it just enough so they don't get too used to it. 👍

Look, it's obvious this thread is all about Lynch's latest film, so let's just lean into it and talk about that:

My expectations were pretty standard, but honestly, the movie just didn't blow me away.
I’ve only ever seen Mulholland Drive from Lynch's filmography, and man, he jumped straight to my favorite directors and that movie became one of my absolute favorites. The first time I watched it, I didn't really get it, but I loved it anyway. The second time around, things started clicking, and I was still loving every second. By the third time? I finally realized I was making a huge mistake by trying to "figure it out." Now, I just sit back and soak in the brilliance.
I'm a bit conflicted about Inland Empire. To be honest, I didn't really vibe with it on my first watch, and I don't think I even fully grasped what was happening. I’m definitely going to revisit it—I have a feeling it’ll land much better the second time around—but for now, it just missed the mark for me.
I don't want this to just turn into a bunch of likes and dislikes. I’m actually going to try and put some effort into explaining things for once:

First off, the movie is way too long. Lynch's fantasies—if you want to call those weird fever dreams that—could easily be squeezed into a tight 30 or 45 minutes. I honestly felt like I lost about half an hour near the end. Sure, the finale lands well enough, but once a Lynch film starts dragging, you're already losing the battle. If it gets boring, it's not working.
Anyway, I don't know what his deal is, but those close-ups irritated me almost as much as Boorman's long takes in "liberation." I guess when it comes to pacing, I’m just a classic guy who prefers a moderate dose of everything. Those shots really bugged me during UC.
The long takes don't really sit right with me either. Like, okay, one lady says this, the other lady says that, and the camera should just cut back to the first lady instead of lingering for an extra second or two every single time. Maybe some people dig it, but not me.
And the camerawork? Man, it just looks so off. When I think back to "silencia" and that gorgeous, crystal-clear imagery—that magical vibe still gives me chills. UC was full of these "dirty" shots (probably caused by that camera we were talking about earlier; look, I'm no expert on technical specs /not that I'm an expert on the stuff I *am* talking about, but I feel qualified enough to have an opinion here/), and that just doesn't work for me with Lynch. I get that the atmosphere is miles away from MD (even though some parts are actually almost identical), but it still feels wrong.
I won't even touch the plot because I didn't understand a damn thing, and I'm not going to rave about the acting; nothing really clicked for me.

All in all, the "Zodiac" I watched yesterday left a much, much stronger impression on me.
And I'm guessing tomorrow's "Satyricon" will be the same story.

Also, one more thing: northerncrane4's posts are absolutely brilliant, but he doles them out so sparingly. It would be awesome if we got more. That whole idea about the actress didn't make sense to me at all initially, but now suddenly everything looks much better.
Just so other users can enjoy some high-quality posts too, I'm adding a quote from ruggedjackal4 above, hoping he's found his focus again and has plenty of time to finish explaining his theory.

So, yeah, that's about it for now. Thanks again for this hilarious thread.
Later

🤣

Kyle Watson8 said:Oh, goodness, placidlynx23, how on earth am I supposed to extract all that cyanide from your mouth? 😛
Why don't you enlighten us with your profound philosophy regarding art? 😘

Forgive me, I'm terribly bored and apparently tasked with saving the world. 😵

If that was directed at me, back in the day I would've just said, "I'm too allergic to stupidity to even bother reacting—I just ignore it."

slyrider16 said:totally agree, placidlynx23, couldn't have put it better myself.😘

I just hope my previous comment came across with the heavy dose of sarcasm I intended. 🙂

but hey, it's all about "everyone having their own opinion" and "freedom of speech." just wonderful 🙂

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.

What would change? Based on what he's said, he'd take those six-plus hours of raw footage and choose a massive amount of shots featuring abstract elements—wind in the desert, waves, abstract architectural shapes—and toss out an equal amount of scenes that are actually "explanatory" or narrative. Generally speaking, he’d focus more on the "world" rather than the "plot" or specific events. But obviously, that version wouldn't draw the kind of audience this one does, which is why the studio dictates exactly what he has to make and how he has to pick it.

A pretty significant difference, huh. Inace, it's interesting that you don't see anything Lynch's in Dune, because even in this compromised version, his touch is more than evident.

Larry Martin11 said:...placidlynx23, take a breather, will you? We're actually trying to have a civil discussion here.

...thanks 🙂

This is fantastic. I see about one person here actually making an argument. Most people just toss out clichés, some try to be funny, but it's all hollow anyway. Who's being called out? Haha, please tell me you're the moderator; if so, the absurdity of this place reaches its peak.

@ Drew White - you either don't get Mann's work or you don't get David Lynch, because otherwise, there's no way you could even attempt to compare the two like you just did. Honestly, I'd say you just don't get Mann. Even the most... average guy (is that enough for P. C. xavierkat?) would realize that Lynch doesn't have any "merit" leanings, nor does he approach art from an external perspective, acting like some sociologist or philosopher hiding behind an artist's echoes.

And yeah, Lynch hasn't changed. Not once in the last 40 years. Maybe he's gone deeper into what he already was, but he hasn't changed at all. That's actually one of the reasons I admire him—it's incredibly rare. As for Dune—I really don't follow your logic there. Are you saying he naively and carelessly jumped into a project where he didn't have the "final cut" (and being naive is one of his defining traits regardless)? That Dune is different from his other films? Or that he isn't satisfied with having made Dune (again, because he lacked the final cut)?

northerncrane4 said: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.

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.

@ 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.

Gary Garcia6 said:I'm not questioning the music choice if we're still talking about Badalamenti, but those three hours... they've got me a little spooked. I'm being dead serious here. It's actually pretty daunting. 🤔

Look, if you can't sit through three hours of David Lynch, then I honestly doubt you should be watching him at all. Everyone I know who truly loves Lynch watches his stuff effortlessly. They want those beautiful dreams—his films—to last as long as possible. For me, it’s hard to imagine any of his movies being shorter than, say, two and a half hours. Even though most of them fall under that mark.

And the music is incredible. Yeah. Primarily Krzysztof Penderecki and Badalamenti.

coastalbison47 said:Picked up this book at a local used book fair last weekend, and honestly, it’s a great read, even if Lynch refuses to give away any of his secrets regarding what his movies actually mean... which I guess is just how he rolls, and honestly, probably for the best 🙂

The guy always keeps a little scrap of velvet tucked in his pocket 😍

bought it but didn't get it, apparently. if you did, you'd realize there simply isn't anything to "reveal" about the meaning of the films. and even if there were, whatever he could tell you would be totally irrelevant. he's said that explicitly a few times now.

it's this obsession with finding "meaning"—searching for some kind of "objective" truth—that acts as the primary barrier preventing people from actually experiencing his work properly.

quietdriver3 said:Is it really that brutal? Like, how tough is it for a regular person to sit through? I don't want to be that guy who drags everyone along to see it, only to have them pissed off at me later because it was too much.

It depends on who you mean by "average person." But considering the tastes people have lately—given the literal epidemic of ADHD sweeping the country, given how hyper-pragmatic everyone has become, and seeing as most people lack any real intellectual depth, emotional capacity, or aesthetic sensibility—I’d say this film isn't for the "common man." Not our true contemporaries. This is a work of art. It doesn't care about "entertaining" us (though we all know what "entertainment" actually means these days); its goal is to enrich the viewer in some way or another.

And no, the movie isn't "messed up." No Lynch film is. You just have to approach it differently than those plot-driven, narrative-heavy movies. You have to watch all his work that way, even the ones that seem more traditional, like Blue Velvet for instance.

If I'm being too vague, look—if someone is genuinely interested in Lynch and his body of work but feels like they "don't get it," I suggest buying and reading this:

Lynch on Lynch

As for those who don't like Lynch, it would be better if they just stayed away and didn't embarrass themselves with their "comments" and "ratings."

For me, it’s definitely Safari. The integration is seamless, the feature set is phenomenal, and you get total configurability—built-in mail client, speed, and a killer rendering engine that actually passes acid2 now.

It honestly baffles me when people claim Chrome has more customization options. It just proves they’ve either never touched Safari or maybe spent all of five minutes messing with it.

Besides, Chrome needs dozens of extensions just to start approaching what Safari does out of the box. And then you’re stuck with terrible integration and a browser that’s just pure bloat.

As for the whole "ugliness" argument—to me, Chrome is the definition of American kitsch. Everything from the name to the icons to the UIem screams tacky.

PS: Regarding that rumor about Microsoft "buying" Safari—that was just some ridiculous hearsay from who-knows-who, and Safari shut it down almost immediately after it started circulating.