Posts by Drew White

placidlynx23 said: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.

And what would be the payoff? He'd just be more himself, right? A big enigmatic weirdo, whistling in the dark.

placidlynx23 said: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.

Man, give us something concrete for once.

@ 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?

placidlynx23 said: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)?

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 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.

I understand his performance perfectly well. Thank you.

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.

Look, I'm not asking you to give me a guided tour of Lynch's entire psyche. My point is that you should actually write something about the film itself, since that’s what this topic is supposed to be about.

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.

🤣 So, you're suggesting Lynch hasn't changed a bit in forty years? Fair enough. He’s always been obsessed with that same surrealist frequency. But what's your take on Dino? 👍

placidlynx23 said: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."

I didn't realize this thread was strictly for David Lynch enthusiasts. If there's no rule against saying Lynch is overrated, then I'll just say I think Blue Velvet is great, but I wouldn't recommend Inland Empire to anyone.
It reminds me of a story my old art teacher used to tell about Piero Manzoni, the Italian artist who literally canned his own excrement and sold it. You see where this is going...

So, why don't you explain to us what exactly you loved about this, or how it supposedly "enriched" you? Hmm... You claim all Lynch films require a different way of viewing? Does that truly apply to everything? Even Wild at Heart?