Posts by Jason Gonzalez7

Sarah Wilson95 said:I’m sorry, but what kind of "bravery" are we talking about here? You can't force anyone to do anything, and neither the police nor an ambulance will step in unless there's an immediate danger to that person or someone else. Okay?

especially when someone is currently in a state of being "numb and withdrawn." What would you even do? Tie them up and drag them to St. John? It doesn't make sense...😁

Learn how to read.

crimsonhound80 said:🙄

This forum isn't the place for amateurs to prescribe medication; this guy needs to be taken to a hospital for a proper evaluation...

Just like I pointed out earlier...

hiddenowl9 said:So, he saw a doctor at the very beginning ten years ago when the medication was first prescribed, which is when the persecutory thoughts and hallucinations were happening. Now, his parents just visit the psychiatrist occasionally to give updates on how things are going. It's true that all those earlier symptoms are gone; now, he just seems withdrawn and uninterested.

That withdrawal and lack of interest sound like the emotional blunting caused by taking Haldol, which you mentioned they might be giving him behind his back. Giving Haldol without consulting a doctor—and even worse, without the patient being part of that conversation—is incredibly dangerous. Seriously...

Psychotic episodes often relapse, and there is a high probability they will follow a cyclical pattern (like once a year, or every two years, etc.).

The patient needs regular check-ups and must attend all scheduled appointments with their physician.

When dealing with psychosis, personality disorders, or schizophrenia, the real struggle isn't necessarily finding the right long-term treatment; it’s the family battle to get them to actually see a psychiatrist.
They usually respond either with aggression or through manipulation. That is the hardest part.
I wouldn't recommend sneaking medication to anyone, especially not Haldol. That's meant for the initial two weeks following a psychotic episode, and even then, it should be paired with something like Akineton to offset the side effects.
For milder relapses, gentler antipsychotics are needed, with the dosage gradually tapered down.
I think your friend is being treated dangerously and incorrectly, primarily because the approach toward him is wrong from the start.

I've dealt with this personally with an extremely intelligent psychotic individual who spent eight years convincing everyone in the family of his delusions—delusions that were crafted so intelligently they seemed almost plausible.

Sometimes you just have to push through the conflict entirely, even if it means resorting to physical restraint or tying someone to a bed. It sounds awful, but sometimes you need the courage to be harsh...
People can be so easily manipulated, especially parents. Instead of taking charge, grabbing him, putting him in the car, and driving straight to the doctor, they take the path of least resistance and just sweep everything under the rug...

Bradley Barnes90 said:It’s one of those movies you just don't get tired of...😁

That's exactly why I asked; you've only put two posts up and haven't said much yet.
I don't really remember the movie itself since it's been ages since I watched it...

Bradley Barnes90 said:It’s a shame about this thread. If someone else had started it, maybe people would actually participate more...

🤣

Come on, we can definitely have a discussion...
I'm genuinely curious how you interpreted the movie...

I mean, the movie isn't really about much—it’s more about that sudden "nothingness" that hits you after a period of success. It’s about those dry spells, people missing each other, and how ambition and selfishness struggle against some deep-seated humanity... things like that...

I actually thought it was pretty good. Not a masterpiece, but a solid watch.

😁

Yeah. The movie is hilarious.

Someone put it perfectly:

What is there to say about a movie where Nicolas Cage rides a motorcycle with his head on fire?

Top Gun.

It’s honestly one of the greatest films ever made.
A total blueprint for young Americans.
A sacred text for the rest of us...

🙏

Yeah, you're definitely right; most people just bring up Zizek to back up their own arguments.
I actually got my hands on Pasquol's book personally, and I think it had a really small print run. I remember spotting it once at the Božidar Adžija library, but it should be available at the Library of Congress too.

Larry Martin11 said:...Jason Gonzalez7, I’m reading your stuff and honestly, I’m loving it—even though I haven't actually sat through a single 🙂 film of yours yet. Are you actually deep into this psychoanalytic school of thought, or is that just your go-to toolkit whenever you're dissecting Lynch? 🙂 Personally, I always find it pretty fascinating when people try to read a movie through—or maybe just over—the lens of psychoanalysis (I once caught a lecture on Maya Deren that was heavily leaned on Lacan and it was 👍), but that whole approach feels a bit foreign to me, so I'm curious...🙂

Larry Martin11, my issue is simply that I studied philosophy 😬
I’d suggest checking out a book by an American film scholar named Aldo Pasquola: Don Juan's Midnight Mirror—you'll love it. It's a study of about 7 or 8 films, I can't recall the exact number right now... but it's great.
And Zizek isn't bad either; he interprets films using Lacanian theory, which is very interesting and down-to-earth.

And yes, I am closely aligned with psychoanalysis, but also with semiology, narratology, cultural anthropology, historicism...
No joke 😬
Ugh, now I'm acting important again, sorry everyone. I'm heading out...

I don't know.
I feel like this is really a movie about movies—about the whole act of storytelling and reading.
That’s why that scene where she enters the room full of rabbits feels like its own kind of resolution; those rabbits represent a masked, unreachable consciousness, the very source of the story and the experience itself.

And if we consider how they are both disguised and unknowable, we end up right back at Lacan—sorry...

My bad. I was trying too hard to sound important, when I could have just said this much more simply...
I was just trying to stay consistent with his way of talking...

Jessica Nguyen85 said: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.

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

🙏 😁

Jessica Nguyen85, thanks for reading me so well. 😉
And you guessed right, I'm actually processing and refining exactly what I wrote in my head.
Personally, if you read between the lines of my post, I think that cognitive barrier is hidden within that "click" that happens when you engage in projection during any narrative work—something that feels both sequential and timeless at once.
It's especially true during the acting process, when you actually become the character you're interpreting. If we consider that everything around us is a narrative construct governed by symbolic Law (oh, Lacan, oh, not Lacan!), then the point becomes clear.

But still, I really need to rewatch the film! I don't believe this is the only way to explain it...

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

And that just goes to show how much he really shakes up the American dairy industry. A great man...

Jessica Nguyen85 said:I see three distinct categories of cinema. First, there’s the standard fare we all know—beginning, middle, end. It’s the typical product churned out whether you're in the US, Europe, or Asia. The mold is always the same. Then you have the experimenters, where the most significant representative of the genre is Peter Greenaway. He argues that standard movies are essentially just "illustrated text," so he crafts these incredibly lush visual escapades disguised as high art. These standard films remind me of sitting in a train compartment, trying to make sense of the scenery passing by, but it’s impossible because the train is flying past; before your synapses can even fire, your station arrives and you're gone. Greenaway’s films feel somewhat similar, except it feels like the train is just idling and refuses to move. Not even a nudge. Not even God will move it. Then, right in the middle, there’s Mr. Lynch. With him, the train moves at a specific speed and rhythm where everything feels perfectly aligned. And the best part? You barely understand what's happening, yet you're enjoying it. You know you're having a good time, but you don't give a damn why. It doesn't matter. You're doing fine, and you don't want it to stop. You just want "your" station to cease to exist.

Inland Empire is everything Lynch is, and everything we've come to expect from him. And yet, it’s something totally new and bizarre. There is so much to process that I don't think I'll need to watch another movie for at least a year. Or so I thought. Because this film has it all—tragedy, drama, schizophrenia, psychedelia, comedy, and sketches. The way it manipulates montage, space, and time makes Memento look like child's play. It has horror, it has blood, and it has scenes that stay with you forever. Especially that first viewing.

There's really no point discussing the plot, because grasping it would probably require another three viewings and maybe twenty pages of debate on the forum. What actually fascinates me is how he manages to pull 200% out of every single character. And the dialogue... I don't want to sound like a snob, but I have to say... the guy was practically operating the camera himself (looking at the crew listing), and I already have the feeling I know which scenes he shot personally. And finally, the soundtrack is perfection, as usual.

Phenomenal and genius. I guess...

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.

Anonymous said:just some total chaotic nonsense...
America America America
America America America
nonsense nonsense nonsense

in that case, I'm voting for the last one... 😬