Posts by Nicholas Walker3

They just released a new edition last year, and now this—and a Blu-ray next? They’re definitely overdoing it!

northerncrane4—could you help me make sense of the hypocrisy on this forum? It feels like some people get their posts deleted just for using a smiley face, while others don't... is there a double standard going on where mocking someone is fine, but actually agreeing with them via a simple emoji gets flagged? I’ve had my own agreement suppressed so many times just by using a smile to show I'm on board with an opinion!

Anyway, I never said Lynch can't be explained—it's more that we can never truly know what his actual target was! Rational explanations work pretty much anywhere, and I don't think he's an idiot who would film something that lacks any kind of logic!

Honestly, The Wall isn't even really a film about Pink Floyd... I mentioned this recently—and ended up rewatching it immediately after saying it—but it’s actually about relationships. It's primarily about the bond between a mother and her son, and then it branches out into all those other human connections... just such a powerful psychological drama, wrapped in great music and incredible animation that hits you with a massive message!

It’s pretty interesting how you managed to dismiss people with actual hands-on experience in just two days—unlike yourself, who only knows the theory from books. Don't you see that some things just can't be learned through reading alone?

Look, I make movies, so I actually know what I’m talking about—I've spent plenty of time watching behind-the-scenes features to see how people work, including how Lynch does things... but you two are either trivializing my points or you just don't get what I'm getting at, so I'm calling it quits on this debate. Regardless, there's a massive gulf between standard filmmaking and the way Lynch operates!

To truly improvise on a set, you have to be talented; someone who over-prepares isn't really improvising... and honestly, that's the core of everything I've been saying! That's exactly what sets Lynch apart from most other creators—and I'm definitely not talking about those "technician" directors...

ruggedjackal46 said:Right. So he has this grand concept and idea, and then he shows up on set and—poof—suddenly tells Dennis Hopper to just grab an oxygen mask and start breathing into it?

They make you think because they capture what they're actually feeling, and since they feel so much, you end up living through it while watching the movie!

Well, I mean, sedlar also films what he feels, and he feels plenty too, forcing the audience to experience it along with him. Does that make the two of them equals?

Exactly—I already mentioned checking out the supplement on TP regarding how they filmed that sandwich biting scene, which makes a few things about Lynch way clearer... but since I hate repeating myself—and honestly, if my posts aren't being read or understood—I'm just calling it quits on this debate!

northerncrane4 said:Every single Lynch film serves as "proof" of whatever was running through his head during creation. Then again, any piece of auteur cinema is essentially evidence of the artist's psyche—so, are we really just debating the fundamental definitions of an artist and their work here? 😕

A shooting script isn't some manifesto for a director's "vision"—it’s a technical document designed for logistics. Its sole purpose is to ensure the crew knows exactly what the shots look like for that day, how many camera positions we're dealing with, and how much time we need for set and lighting resets. What exactly are you imagining—that every shot in the script includes a deep dive into the director's psychological intent or how a specific frame contributes to the film's overarching themes? That's just not how the job works. 😕😕😕

Well, I think it's both—I mean, with many scripts, if a director gets fired, the movie ends up being "directed" by someone else... but with Lynch, that just doesn't work. He's the only one who can truly finish his vision, and you can really feel that!

ruggedjackal46 said:If Lynch's films are strictly an expression of his own internal monologue, and if they're constructed in a way that doesn't even align with his original vision, then why on earth do these movies provoke anyone else to think at all? Based on how you've described his process, it sounds like Lynch is just making movies for himself, totally oblivious to the fact that an audience exists, working in this messy, unplanned, almost haphazard way. A process like that would only produce a coherent film that triggers specific thoughts and emotions by sheer accident. Not only is that statistically unlikely, but if you listen to his interviews, it’s pretty clear he isn't just winging it without a concept, an idea, or a plan. He knows exactly what he's trying to achieve.

He works with a real concept and a vision—he's just such a genius that it's enough... they force you to think because he captures raw emotion, and since he feels so much, you end up living through it while watching!

Well, sure, Lynch might have had certain thoughts—and I’ve already shared what those were—but there isn't any actual "proof" regarding his exact mindset, which is my whole point... honestly, no matter how straightforward his films might seem at first glance, there just isn't one single rational explanation for them (if there even is one!)—besides, like I mentioned, looking at a production notebook (not sure if you've ever had the chance to dig into one!?) shows just how much is planned out versus how much is improvised... when that's missing, it's a dead giveaway that things are being made up on the fly...

Your plot summary is so broad it could apply to pretty much any movie out there... I’m honestly worried you might not fully grasp how the filmmaking process actually works! Sure—once you've seen a film, you can give a general recap of what happened—but we’re really here to discuss what was going through Lynch's head while he was actually making it!?

Besides, Lynch himself talks about how things shift and decisions change right in the middle of production—even during those repetitive takes of the same scene... so, unless you happen to know more than Lynch does himself, that's a whole different story!?

northerncrane4 said:Watched it.

There’s this whole school of thought claiming you should just "feel" Lynch's films rather than try to understand them. To me, that feels like the path of least resistance—I think his work has enough narrative structure that you can't just dismiss it as a series of random associations. Personally, I find it much more interesting to deconstruct the cognitive mechanics that allow that mosaic to take shape.

When looking at "Inland Empire," it seems to me the initial impulse behind such a project was the director's attempt to grasp the mental state of the film actress. This fits perfectly with how the plot begins—at the moment filming starts within the movie, the sense of cause and effect breaks down, mirroring the actress's own loss of self as she transforms into a film character. The actual process of filmmaking—which is inherently non-chronological—drives the disjointed nature of "Inland Empire" all the way to that final frame, where the actress has completely lost her identity and the character begins to live its own life.

Hmm.

It's actually a shame the theater screening doesn't start around 9:30 PM and run until after midnight; that would have made the concept feel complete.

That sounds more like a plot summary than the director's actual philosophy... I'm worried that with this film, Lynch is distracting us from the underlying issues and moral decay within the film industry—and the world at large—which get forgotten because people only focus on the finished product. They're basically flashy packages that, at first glance, don't even hint at the real problems we should be discussing.

Alright, I’d love to hear what was going through Lynch's head while he was filming Inland Empire.

Look, I get it—Lynch and I both aim for those gut feelings and deep thoughts—but I honestly can't wrap my head around whether what I'm thinking is actually what he intended me to feel. I’m pretty sure Lynch doesn't give a damn about audience reactions, and honestly, that’s exactly why he’s a legend and able to make such masterpieces! Besides, he’s one of those rare directors who refuses to comment on his own work—and if you ask me, there's a really good reason for that!

northerncrane4 said:And what about it? Are emotions supposed to be meaningless? Don't they have their own sources and their own cause-and-effect?

Of course they do, but they’re deeply personal—there's zero chance you (or anyone else, really) can truly grasp how Lynch was feeling or what was crossing his mind during specific takes that he eventually stitches together under a single label later. Besides, I think you know that Lynch doesn't use shot lists—which is basically standard practice on any US film set—and he doesn't over-explain things to his actors. He mostly lets them shoot first, then figures out if it actually worked afterward (just look at that scene where someone is eating a sandwich in Twin Peaks if you ever get the chance). In the end, he's the only one who knows if the final product actually matches what he had in his head before cameras started rolling!

Could you please explain how you think you're "decoding" his logic?

Just another one in a long line of brilliant Lynchian tales!

northerncrane4 said:I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

Look, there are actually people out there who can read the Lynchian code—so they can explain everything you need to know. It’s funny, really—how some people claim to decipher things that aren't even there, especially since Lynch himself has said countless times that he films emotions, not logical sequences or made-up plots! Apparently, there are even bigger David Lynches out there than Lynch himself.🙂

@Anthony Smith3

Honestly, David Lynch isn't trying to mess with anyone's head—everything he does is actually pretty straightforward. Just watch the movie and enjoy the ride --don't try to overanalyze what he put on screen. People who struggle to grasp things that aren't meant to be decoded just don't "get" Lynch (or Trier) and their messages; they end up feeling confused, thinking there's some hidden trick. But really, he just sees the world through a different lens than everyone else!
To truly understand Lynch, you only need to remember his line from TP: "owls are not what they seem" and that's pretty much it.......

@David Price5
A masterpiece is a masterpiece—there’s really no such thing as more or less important!

David Price5 said:Hmm. This implies his films haven't actually been seen, right?

None of the films mentioned qualify as pure action movies. I mean real, high-octane action like Face Off, True Lies, or Terminator 2...

And comparing him to Die Hard is honestly bordering on blasphemy.

Die Hard is the perfect example of smart action. It's true that some are action like Armageddon, but they belong to different subgenres. Still, one has to admit the sheer scale of Armageddon...

I haven't actually seen any of his work, I was just speaking generally—you can't really label something a masterpiece just because it made a ton of money or became popular...

And honestly, we could go on forever debating these genres and subgenres... I mean, what's the logic in saying Apocalypse isn't an action movie—despite all the explosions and effects—while calling T2 one (even though T2 has that whole family component, friendship, moral dilemmas, and political undertones)?!

David Price5 said:It seems some people forget that masterpieces aren't limited to specific genres. If a film sets a high bar for its category and earns genuine respect and appreciation, then it truly deserves to be called a masterpiece.

Nah, I disagree—if it’s just a mindless adventure like those movies I keep hearing about from Bay.....there are plenty of action films that truly deserve the title of masterpiece because they offer way more than just explosions......Dirty Harry, Apocalypse Now, French Connection, two towers, and stuff like that—aren't those all action movies?

wiredbison82 said:There aren't any absolute masterpieces or total sensations listed in this poll—so I guess it’s fair that none showed up over the whole decade.
American Beauty, No Country for Old Men, and even Eastwood's film are great—really good, actually—but let's be honest, there have been better...

With all those other movies left out, the year itself feels off too—I mean, if you count a decade from year one to ten, we're looking at 2001–2010... plus, there are some pretty cool titles lined up for next year, and this year isn't even over yet!