something. that is true but no one .admits..

[NEON MERCURY]

the reason lynch gets so much praise is because he is one of the ONLY people in the industry today whose movies push the art of film while still generating box office and a huge fanbase. i don't think anybody's been able to make an artistic and original movie that still appeals to the public since kubrick. lynch is the beacon of light in a sea made up mostly of what can only be described as boring, unoriginal cinema.

..damn now that is what I am talking about.  ...

one of the key word  is that lynch makes ORIGINAL..films.  unlike any one else..
him loosing that acad. award to howard  for a beautiful  mind ..

look at his films and compare/comtrast them w/ all the other directors that have thier "respective" forums..

eraserhead
elephant man
dune
wild ar heart
lost highway
fire walk w/me
blue velvet
mulholland drive
the straight story
...not to mention his side projects..

FACE IT like tina said  he's "simply the best".......
thats it lock this thread and end this.

[Find Your Magali]

Well, I'd argue that the beauty of Xixax is that we all have 2 or 3 directors who we think make "original" films that are "unlike anyone else." ... and we bring that combined love of cinema into mostly civil debates about those directors and films.

So Lynch is definitely some people's cup of tea. ... Not so much for others.

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm the furthest guy from saying David Lynch is the best going now. I've only seen a few films compared to others, but to make it quick, Blue Velvet wasn't effective because it tried to put a controversial subject into a very tired structure, one similiar to an old Hitchcock film. Instead of finding a structure to allow the material to be explored, it finds one to allow the material to be reduced to easy identifications. And it all feels so general now in intensity of the effect. With Dennis Hopper's character, the idea of who he represents is chilling. The performance is not. His character is hardly explored and too frequent in pulling out the gas mask - his signature calling card of when he is going to attack, so to say. The film was screaming for an exploration as intense as the one of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs.

With Lost Highway, the film is wonderfully more effective and memorable on all the outer layers lacking in Blue Velvet. Its structure isn't tired, but intriguing and most importantly, mysterious. And Lynch doesn't film as casual, he is operating more of making it as effective as a horror film would. The visuals and technique, again, not as traditional and much more effective. The ultimate problem though is that the film is pure style. Nothing more. It is shades of Bunuel's That Obscure Object of Desire and making the same mistake as the film: it shows ambiguilties, but little to think about later. IMO, Bunuel is dealing with superficial beauty in what is exotic with the spanish girl and what is mundane with the french one. They both play the same character, but the french girl gets all the sexual scenes. The spanish girl none. In the male character's search for control of this woman, we feel his pain because we too cannot totally grab the girl we want. We desire to see the spanish woman in the revealing scenes because she is more mysterious and exotic. We just don't get it. Lost Highway actually has nothing between the man and teenager in how they could be the same. No strip of thread intertwining them. It is just a clear break to see how the audience reacts when it is so clearly done with no purpose. We are too feel the discomfort of the plot and of the switch. It succeeds in that, but this success isn't the most satisfactory.

Muholland Drive, though, is a masterpiece. On general thought, its outer form of a puzzle is disheartening and intriguing all at once. What is intriguing about it is that does catch your attention, as puzzles do, to delve deeper into the story. What is disheartening is that usually with puzzle movies, complexity of emotions are reduced because all puzzles lead to answers. Ambiguilty none. Whats so great about this movie is that the puzzle does, in ways, seem neverending even if a good basis and many thorough ideas are generally accepted. Whats frustating, (meaning good) is that the film never seems right in what everything is about. The reason to call it a masterpiece is that the film is so continually inventive and so daring and made with such confidence in talent all around. Nothing like this has been achieved before.

I do really want to see The Straight Story. Everything I've read about the film suggests I'd love it. I started Wild At Heart but turned it off only 10 minutes into it. Maybe I'll give it another try.

As for best filmmaker? Not sure. I'm not sure if anyone is generally consistent in making great films all the time. As high as I marked all the PTA films, I never put them that high. For most, something was missing for me to keep from putting them over the top. Only with PDL was I thoroughly pleased. With others, Fernando Meirelles had a debut like no other with City of God, but its just one movie. David Gordon Green did great with George Washington, but dropped off a lot with All the Real Girls. I guessed if I had to dismiss competition and pick someone, I'd say Hayao Miyazaki. His last two movies were amazing works of mastery and dominated the years they came out for me.

~rougerum

[godardian]

I agree that Mulholland Drive is a masterpiece, if not for all the same reasons as GT.

With Blue Velvet, though... I really love that film. It's not as good as Mulholland Drive (Lynch's best film), but I think it is really beautiful, a real movie-lover's movie, and very Bunuelian in its own way... I'm not quite sure I understood GT's criticism of it, but it does seem to me that if you didn't like Far from Heaven, it would follow that you wouldn't like Blue Velvet. I think the very direct and very purposeful- pointed- artifice of these films seem pointless to their detractors, but me- I love artifice, and I love the way these films play with it, bring out the tension of blunt artificiality in a supposedly plot-driven drama. To me, the bottom-line "point" of such a thing is a certain tender sadness over the absolute and inexorable divorce between the compelling, inspired fantasities and distillations of "real" life we see on the screen, and the much heavier, much less exciting or "pure" experience of actual reality (a theme explored more obviously in Mulholland Dr.).

To me, Blue Velvet has all the child-like love of film and nostalgic innocence that everyone's always claiming Spielberg has, but I have yet to find in his work...

[classical gas]

i like david lynch alright, but i think he really has movies that he'd like to make but he isn't allowed to make his way.  if i'm wrong, then i don't really like him.  
seriously, he has a resemblance to bunuel.  but bunuel is way better, because he seemed to have been able to film whatever the hell he wanted to and it's so great.  
i'm a little off topic.  
lynch...okay, in my opinion

[Gold Trumpet]

I'm not quite sure I understood GT's criticism of it

With my problems on Blue Velvet, first I say it has a very tired structure, one similiar to an old Hitchcock film. Specifically, it uses that dark and light comparison a lot, where something really bad happens in a really good place and the difference between the two is observed and our own personal security is threatened. Sado Maschism (sp?), by definition alone does that and feels like a topic so new in movies for the time that to introduce it on these terms of is saddening. This structure of putting it into a Hitchcock mold only reduces it. It allows little exploration.

And to continue the Hitchcock comparison, everything feels generalized. Most importantly, Dennis Hopper's performance feels generalized. The movie, with tired structure, lacks the intensity of showing this gruesome character. Everytime I saw him pull out the gas mask before attack, I felt ten feet further away from him than in almost every shot of Silence of the Lambs in which Lector is observed. For me, personally, his role is not really memorable and only screaming of better attention.

The film was trying to be memorable, as with a horror film, in effect of what it showed. Its just dated. As with many Hitchock films, the intention is understood but the lack of ferocity is felt in exploring the subject because everything is so traditional in the filmmaking. Time destroys all effectiveness because other films explore the subject better. And an example of this? The Piano Teacher.

I'm not sure though if these reasons are similiar ones to why I disliked Far From Heaven. Given the Sirk recreation in that and recreation of Hitchcock here, prolly so.

~rougerum

[Newtron]

Holy shit GT when did you get an avatar? You have an avatar! Holy shit.

[TheVoiceOfNick]

Read Ebert's review of Blue Velvet.

That review just plain blows my mind.  I disagree w/ it on every level.  I don't even bother w/ Ebert's reviews in regards to Lynch's work anymore.  He slams the guy for years, now he's the biggest supporter: **** for SS and MD (and even screened MD for his frame-by-frame analysis-seminar-thing).  How he could rave about his last 2 films (which I find to be the *safest*, if there is such a thing regarding Lynch) and dimiss the others doesn't quite wash w/ me.

Oh yeah, and by Ebert's math, Radio is a much better movie than BV

I actually agreed with Ebert's review on Blue Velvet.  It described in words how I felt after the 3 times I saw the movie.

That movie put the disease in me!  Ebert is a sick fat fuck... screw him... i've never liked his reviews... I try not to listen to any reviews before I go see a movie... I have an overall unique view of film... no one has ever accurately sync'ed up with my film sensibilities.... and Ebert is the worst.

[SHAFTR]

Read Ebert's review of Blue Velvet.

That review just plain blows my mind.  I disagree w/ it on every level.  I don't even bother w/ Ebert's reviews in regards to Lynch's work anymore.  He slams the guy for years, now he's the biggest supporter: **** for SS and MD (and even screened MD for his frame-by-frame analysis-seminar-thing).  How he could rave about his last 2 films (which I find to be the *safest*, if there is such a thing regarding Lynch) and dimiss the others doesn't quite wash w/ me.

Oh yeah, and by Ebert's math, Radio is a much better movie than BV

I actually agreed with Ebert's review on Blue Velvet.  It described in words how I felt after the 3 times I saw the movie.

That movie put the disease in me!  Ebert is a sick fat fuck... screw him... i've never liked his reviews... I try not to listen to any reviews before I go see a movie... I have an overall unique view of film... no one has ever accurately sync'ed up with my film sensibilities.... and Ebert is the worst.

I've gone from hating Ebert to really enjoying his reviews, even if I don't agree with them.

[NEON MERCURY]

ebert's praise for dark city ..is as ridiculous as  his hatred for blue velvet

..honestly....he lost alot of my respect when found out that he didn't like BV.

but then he goes bananass over mulholland.... , , :x .....

[bonanzataz]

it does seem to me that if you didn't like Far from Heaven, it would follow that you wouldn't like Blue Velvet.

i thought far from heaven was alright. nothing special. blue velvet is awesome though. one of the few movies i felt compelled to watch thrice in two days. sorry to say, i'm not much of a todd haines fan.

anyway, there goes that theory.

[Ghostboy]

i like david lynch alright, but i think he really has movies that he'd like to make but he isn't allowed to make his way.  if i'm wrong, then i don't really like him.  

Ever since Dune, he's had final cut. He only makes movies that he really wants to make (which is why he hasn't made more). So unfortunately, I guess you really don't like him.

[modage]

well, final cut or not, he needs to quit the bullshittin' and get on his next movie, STRAIGHT UP.  8)

[godardian]

it does seem to me that if you didn't like Far from Heaven, it would follow that you wouldn't like Blue Velvet.

i thought far from heaven was alright. nothing special. blue velvet is awesome though. one of the few movies i felt compelled to watch thrice in two days. sorry to say, i'm not much of a todd haines fan.

anyway, there goes that theory.

I really meant that GT had similar reasons for disliking both... I mean, I love them both, but for different reasons. It just seemed as though GT, not liking what he saw as a too-overt Hitchcock robbery in one and a too-overt Sirk robbery in the other, had similar reasons.

Okay, clarification over.

[godardian]

I'm not quite sure I understood GT's criticism of it

With my problems on Blue Velvet, first I say it has a very tired structure, one similiar to an old Hitchcock film. Specifically, it uses that dark and light comparison a lot, where something really bad happens in a really good place and the difference between the two is observed and our own personal security is threatened. Sado Maschism (sp?), by definition alone does that and feels like a topic so new in movies for the time that to introduce it on these terms of is saddening. This structure of putting it into a Hitchcock mold only reduces it. It allows little exploration.

And to continue the Hitchcock comparison, everything feels generalized. Most importantly, Dennis Hopper's performance feels generalized. The movie, with tired structure, lacks the intensity of showing this gruesome character. Everytime I saw him pull out the gas mask before attack, I felt ten feet further away from him than in almost every shot of Silence of the Lambs in which Lector is observed. For me, personally, his role is not really memorable and only screaming of better attention.

The film was trying to be memorable, as with a horror film, in effect of what it showed. Its just dated. As with many Hitchock films, the intention is understood but the lack of ferocity is felt in exploring the subject because everything is so traditional in the filmmaking. Time destroys all effectiveness because other films explore the subject better. And an example of this? The Piano Teacher.

I'm not sure though if these reasons are similiar ones to why I disliked Far From Heaven. Given the Sirk recreation in that and recreation of Hitchcock here, prolly so.

~rougerum

I think The Piano Teacher and Blue Velvet are good films apart from those parts of their content that have ceased to be shocking, though. I think there are more memorable things about it than Dennis Hopper brutalizing Isabella Rossellini, just as I think there are more memorable things in The Piano Teacher than just the rape scene... I like Blue Velvet's strangely nuanced appreciation of Americana (the surface of it and what's underneath), and I liked The Piano Teacher for the way the form (the direction, the lighting, length of takes, framing, etc) matched the content (Isabelle Huppert's performance) so well, both conjoining to build up that repressed, hermetic, rigorously controlled exterior within which sheer, violent emotion is waiting to force its way out... in any way it can.

I can't say I was shocked, though... and I think a rape or violent sexuality on film is something that remains disturbing long after the taboo against those depictions has been broken. You don't have be shocked and surprised to have seen something to be disturbed by it... there are certain elementals in us human beings that don't come and go with the current mores.