Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

I feel like the future really boils down to who you are, what you do, and where you happen to be standing... plus, let's assume we're talking about maybe fifty years down the line. I’m also on board with the idea that the future belongs to massive multinational corporations and huge conglomerates, though personally, I don't think their vision is going to be physically violent so much as psychologically coercive. To me, the world is going to end up looking like some weird mashup of >, 1984, and >. Now, if you've got a little common sense and a bit of a non-conforming streak, things will probably feel more like >. If you're dealing with actual or perceived paranoia, it'll lean toward 1984. But if you're a total party animal, obsessed with consumerism and daytime talk shows, then you're headed straight for >. 😁

Linda Hughes88 said:well if that's the case, why are you asking me for a quick rundown on the credit crunch? Come on, lay some real expertise on us—give us your honest, non-robotic, non-news-anchor take on what actually happened...

Look, I noticed you have this sort of... unadulterated enthusiasm for capitalism. It’s actually quite impressive how you manage to stay so serious while tossing out media buzzwords and newsroom explanations for what is basically just plain old crime—except it isn't "crime" because, at the moment it all started, there weren't any rules. If someone wants to be polite about it, or find a fancier name for the phenomenon, they might call it "creative accounting." What we're looking at here is money-moving mechanics that feel pretty similar to how Enron handled their books. And since bookkeeping in the US is fairly liberal (unlike, say, over in Europe), it's possible to pull funds off the balance sheet to save on taxes and regulatory capital. Then, those same funds get cycled back into a bank through securitization via unregulated, unchecked mortgage companies, and then they're packaged again as derivatives. It's all the same money, just repackaged a few times. And the second the scheme snaps, you lose a few billion. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal scenario, the interest rate on senior securitization tranches can hit 25%. But as time goes on, you realize there are way too many variables that could not only eat into the interest on a CDO but sink the entire setup. Unfortunately, that's just how modern investment banking works these days—lending managers hunt for creative financial products, accountants try to figure out how to even record such complex transactions, and credit analysts just shrug their shoulders. Meanwhile, the only people making real money are the lawyers drafting the facility documentation.

Robin Ramos2 said:And what exactly is Bernanke whispering to you under your pillow at night?

It’s Bernanke, not Bernake.

Gary L. Crittenden, Citigroup's chief financial officer, told my colleague, Eric Dash, that Citi, in manufacturing products to sell into the securitization market, had focused on the wrong thing. ''We had a market risk lens looking at those products, not the credit risk lens,'' he said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9618B63

Sadly, I can only quote people. Let's just say a slice of what I actually do over at Citigroup involves Quantitative Investment Strategies. Managing the securitization portfolio—both origination and investment—means credit risk is, well, sort of my specialty. I thought Linda Hughes88 was working on similar stuff, but looking at her bio, it seems more like... journalism.

Linda Hughes88 said:the whole mess still isn't fixed
so how did this even happen? basically, bankers cooked up these new types of securities just to spread out the risk, and they blew up in popularity over the last few years... what we're talking about is when a lender gives you money for a house, but instead of keeping that debt on their own books, they package it up and sell it off as a CMO. sure, it lowers the risk for the lender if you can't pay them back, but at the same time, it makes them way less careful about who they're lending to in the first place. suddenly everyone and their mother was getting a mortgage, usually with those crazy high interest rates, those "teaser" rates, or adjustable ones... and the market was already totally bloated, with real estate prices hitting record highs in US history, so it was really just a matter of time before everything flipped... a lot of people point the finger at Greenspan, saying he kept the federal funds rate at 1% for way too long, though he defends himself, and honestly, I think he might have a point since the Federal Reserve's influence on long-term rates—which the market actually decides—was pretty limited because foreign investors were driving down yields with all that demand. then, as rates start climbing, a bunch of people stuck with subprime mortgages can't keep up with the payments and go bust, which leads to massive losses for mortgage lenders (because now they're stuck with a house that's worth way less due to falling prices, plus they desperately need cash just to keep the lights on daily) and for the banks that are out there investing in things like CMO's and CDO's on the bond market (which, by the way, were super frequently rated AAA, meaning supposedly "lowest risk"). this triggers a spike in risk and fear, which naturally kills liquidity. banks stop wanting to lend to each other because they can't figure out the actual risk and they need to hoard cash for themselves... so the cost of capital goes up for everyone, from big corporations to regular households, regardless of how good their credit is—it's that classic "bad money drives out good" situation. central banks tried to soften the blow by cutting rates and pumping in liquidity through injections (which just brings up that whole moral hazard question, where if the central bank bails me out now, I'm definitely going to act even more reckless next time because I know they'll probably jump in again)
as for the banks, they've all taken hits this quarter, but plenty of people think they actually took advantage of the chaos and overshot their write-offs just so they could look like superstars in the next quarter...

That's just the mechanics of it. I figured you knew a bit more than what they show you on TV.

Linda Hughes88 said:🤣 🤣
Look, guys, when we talk about those massive American trillions, you have to remember they scale differently than how people might think back home... because an American trillion is essentially what others would call a billion... I'm literally over here teaching middle school curriculum right now😲

Could you maybe break down in a few sentences how this whole recent credit crunch actually started and how they managed to fix things?

I'm genuinely curious...

A topic that actually started off on the right foot... 😁

So, I took another look at it, and honestly, I think the movie really earns this discussion. I’m not sure if there’s any interest in the game over in Europe, but the film itself is just phenomenal. It’s crafted so well that you start wondering why on earth people don't make movies like this anymore—it feels almost "simple." But that simplicity is actually just the result of several perfect execution points.

First off, the direction. It’s unobtrusive. The scenes are tight—nothing extra, nothing missing, none of that unnecessary filler. Also, the film seems—if I'm seeing this right—to be completely devoid of flashbacks, those moments where we jump back in time just so the audience can catch up. Everything unfolds chronologically, right in front of us, so the plot and the characters' behavior sink in immediately and just stay there.

Second, the acting. Viggo... I mean, maybe besides Daniel Day-Lewis, I don't know if there's an actor with that much range and depth. Every movement, every expression tells a story. Especially as the plot weaves itself in and out. And the Oscar recognition was deserved. It’s rare that the word "stoicism" comes to mind when watching a character, but he conveys that exact quality required by the situation—that moment where you know exactly what he’s thinking, knowing he could just walk away from everything at any second, yet for some reason, he stays. Two scenes really stuck with me: the fight in the Turkish bath with those two Chechen guys, and then the ritual involving the tattoo where he becomes part of the Russian mob. Then you have the rest of the cast—Armin Mueller-Stahl is just brilliant. And Naomi gives her best when she's just sitting there in silence. So much of this film is left unsaid; it just hangs in the air, creating an atmosphere you can practically "see," where a character doesn't have to say "I'm struggling"—you just see it, and you see how these issues are shaking their entire existence.

Great film.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Looking at the release schedule for the rest of the year, I get the feeling you aren't going to see anything better than this... but hey, what do I know...

Just a quick correction... caught Cronenberg's Eastern Promises last night and all I can say is 🙏

A subtle study of character and morals, good and evil. A tight little package without a single flaw; the acting was just perfect. Viggo should probably grab an Oscar at least, if only for that fight scene in the Turkish bath 😬

On the way... it was worth coming out just to catch the trailer for the new Daniel Day-Lewis film from P. T. Anderson, There Will Be Blood.

Laura Palmer25 said:Oh, I just saw he actually pulled four stars from Roger Ebert! That’s not something you see every day.

Looking at the release schedule for the rest of the year, I get the feeling you aren't going to see anything better than this... but hey, what do I know...

One good thing about a remake of a movie like 3:10 to Yuma is realizing just how much you've changed over twenty-five years, and how watching a film more closely opens up so many different ways to interpret it. Still, one thing stays true: a well-executed western, in all its stripped-down simplicity, is arguably the most rewarding genre to film. Especially when you have two of the best actors working today in the lead roles—that pretty much settles the matter. Easily the best film I've seen in the last year. On one hand, you have the classic setup where, amidst a sea of crime and fear, one man with a code shows everyone else what it actually means to be a man (think High Noon), and on the other, there's this modern visual authenticity of the Western (like Unforgiven). It’s that rare moment where you're actually glad you sat through a film in a theater.

It's hard to say which of the two is better. What’s interesting is that at certain points, you almost lose track of who stands where, plus it feels like they intentionally played it so their fates are intertwined by chance—making who is on which side almost secondary.

After it ended, I found myself wondering if it's even possible to make a similar kind of film set here in our own backyard... maybe something involving a member of the US Military Police heading to the front lines a few days after the Storm, tasked with arresting a US Army officer over some alleged crimes... hmm....

Laura Palmer25 said:😕

Man... honestly, even I’m starting to get where this joke is going. 🤣

But really, this whole thread is brilliant. 🙏

Brenda Carter96 said:Top Gun.

It’s basically the greatest movie ever made.
A handbook for young Americans.
The holy grail for the rest of us.

🙏

There's just something about it... I keep hearing people say Val Kilmer was actually the real standout in that movie, and without him, the whole thing would've fallen flat. And man, he has a knack for those kinds of roles... the mentor in True Romance, Doc Holliday in Tombstone, Chris Shiherlis in Heat, Philip in Alexander...

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?😕

Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

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

This needs to be passed along to Mr. Lynch. Even if it's amateurish, some of these ideas might actually help him craft a "better" film. It’s hard to find anyone these days willing to put in the work to make the world we live in better; though this would certainly serve as a sort of... balm for a seemingly cinematic genius to become even more brilliant. More brilliant. I haven't read this much constructive criticism since I started lurking on the Film subforum, so it feels like something incredibly targeted—at least in terms of being reminiscent of a lecture from the Academy of Dramatic Arts. Even if it feels banal at times or stylistically raw and repetitive, this critique tells us a lot about how one should actually watch a film and what to expect from it. While waiting for the next contribution to this community, kudos for hitting the nail on the head regarding the core issues of the film today. And in general.

Ever wonder why some movies just feel tedious or pointless? Especially when you stack them up against something like Mission: Impossible or Die Hard. It’s not because those action flicks require deep thought while you're actually watching them. It’s more about what happens before you even hit play. There’s this period of contemplation—which, let's be honest, most of us only indulge in during those rare moments between thinking about food or sex—where an idea slowly takes shape. It lingers. It needs time to find its words. But then, you sit down to watch the film, and suddenly everything clicks. It isn't always that "Aha! I get it!" moment. It’s more of a connection. A peripheral link that somehow validates your existence on a subliminal level. You know, that spiritual kind of existence. Something timeless, existing in a space without a beginning or an end. It’s a rare occurrence. Much like a really good orgasm. Or... Adrenaline rush. It’s one of those things you think you understand until it actually hits you. You know, that sudden spike where everything gets sharp and loud and your heart starts hammering against your ribs like it’s trying to break out. I was thinking about it the other day while watching *Die Hard*—just sitting there, totally calm, and then suddenly you're right there with McClane, feeling that frantic energy. It's strange how much our bodies can react to something that isn't even happening in real life. Makes you wonder if we're all just waiting for a real-world trigger to flip that switch. Anyway. Just a thought.Ili shootA hundred years. Or maybe just a century. It feels like that much sometimes, doesn't it? Just... a hundred years.

From that point of view, I guess I just don't get all those people who act like a movie didn't even touch them, but hey, that’s fine. Everyone's entitled to their own take.

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.

It really does warm my heart to come across something like this. 😍

I feel like Jason Gonzalez7 is playing with this sort of dual message here. It’s almost as if they're trying to say, in this infinite present moment, "this is how I experience the film," while simultaneously setting the stage for something else. It's not just that the movie "allows" you to find something deeper, broader, or entirely unknown after a second, third, or nth viewing. It isn't quite that. It’s more like the film anticipates it.

Just a quick thought on the whole idea of film symbolism. No matter how much a viewer tries to stay objective, it’s almost impossible not to start layering in commentary based on everything we’re currently seeing in cinema today. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that as soon as Jason Gonzalez7 wrote that part about the four symbolic frameworks, she realized just how limiting that description actually is—though, for what it's worth, I completely agree with her list. I haven't quite figured out yet how this specific film manages to strike at that cognitive veil we carry between the external world and infinity (see the signature). 😉 But hold on—let's take it slow. First comes the revolution, then comes the formalization.

It’s honestly wild. When I sat down to watch this, I didn't expect anything like it. I wasn't even sure a movie like this could actually be made—let alone that it could actually function. But then there’s Lynch. He just pulls something like this off. To be honest, it kind of left me feeling disgusted by "normal" movies. I just hope that, like any true genius, he stays around long enough to drop something else in a few years. Who knows.

northerncrane4 said:Meanwhile—this director is clearly campaigning for her to snag an Oscar.

Lynch: Cheese is made. from Milk.
Guy: Oh, I see what's happening here.

🙏 😁

Sean Allen76 said:What a bunch of nitpicking.
If you actually feel like watching a movie, just go pay your $5 and enjoy yourselves.
In five days, you'll still be thinking about it.
I’m planning on heading back this Thursday if there's a screening.
Honestly, I'm going just to see the acting—it's a guaranteed Oscar winner.
Plus, there's Locomotiona, that Lynch's ghost of love vibe, Beck's black tambourine, and Nina Simone's "Sinner Man" at the end on the soundtrack.
When it first ended, I wasn't feeling it, but after discussing it here on the forum, it grew on me. Now? It's easily one of my favorites ever.
That's just how it goes.

Not really. That was actually put quite well.

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.

It’d probably be best to just start the thread with the movie title and leave the body totally blank. That’s all we really need.

Jason Chavez32 said:Honestly, it’s just completely nonsensical—it feels restrictive, a little bit lazy, and frankly, a tad crazy to try and pigeonhole cinema into "standard," "experimental," and then "Lynchian." It’s pretty hard to take a movie review seriously when it kicks off with a claim like that; it just screams a lack of understanding regarding the art of filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, Lynch is a brilliant director, but at the end of the day, he's really just a master of atmosphere.

Calling someone a "nonsensical, limiting, and unhinged" amateur while trying to preach formal film taxonomy feels a bit much. Unless, of course, the person being quoted actually intended to derail the thread and attack the integrity of the users here 😬

I’m not sure if anyone else has picked up on this yet... but the real issue with these kinds of debates usually boils down to how we define things. To me, those trilogies—and honestly, even some of the quintets—just don't qualify as "films" in the sense I'm using the term.

I don't really count people like Stephen King or Chuck Palahniuk as actual literature.

Trying to convince someone they’re wrong feels a lot like dealing with a viral outbreak. You just burn everything that came into contact with the infection... but you still have to deal with whatever's left standing.

Melissa Rivera5 said:DISCLAIMER
This is strictly a theoretical discussion. I’m not trying to promote racism, sexism, or any of that other stuff. I'm just curious...

POINT IS
So, I was thinking, maybe Hitler wasn't totally off base. Like, looking at people living with Down syndrome today, or those with severe disabilities and terminal illnesses... they aren't really contributing anything positive to society. Honestly, they just end up draining resources that we never see a return on. Don't you think forced euthanasia might actually be better for everyone in those cases? Let's try to look at this from both an individual and a group perspective—and let's try to stay STRICTLY logical here, instead of getting all emotional. From a group standpoint, it would probably be better to have fewer "weak links" due to bad DNA, but from an individual's view, I guess it's a ? maybe significant? crime.

You aren't the first person to wander down this particular rabbit hole. The problem—and honestly, the solution to these kinds of ideas—is that every time someone tries to bypass general humanism to draw a line in the sand saying, "these people are useful, these people are useless," they very quickly (sometimes quite rapidly) find themselves on the wrong side of that line. The thing is, a true humanist would actually see people with these views as being "useless." The small silver lining—maybe because they are... erm... human—is that the worst thing that happens to people like that is isolation. Or prison. Or a mental institution.