Yes and no. Yes in that a lot of people out there think he can do no wrong and will honestly say Wild at Heart and Dune are masterpieces. No in that a lot of people also don’t understand what he does and think he’s only being weird for the sake of being weird. I admire Lynch primarily for the amount of work he puts into making his films. Listen to him talk about the sound design of Mulholland Dr., and you’ll understand what a great director the guy is. He puts so much work into making his films great, and, whether or not they turn out great, I appreciate the fact that he tries. He’s had his misfires (though, to be fair, it wasn’t his fault Dune turned out lousy. I can’t really excuse Wild at Heart, unfortunately), but when he’s on, he’s really on. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about him, for better or for worse. I guess there’s no objective way to ‘get’ David Lynch, but if there is, it’s somewhere between thinking he’s a god amongst men and thinking he’s a pretentious hack. I certainly sympathize with people who don’t get him, because he is in no way easy to get, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who just lash out in frustration because he doesn’t always make sense.
Never. He is one of the great, uncompromising artists still at work. It’s a gift to have him creating.
Blue Velvet is a good contender for best American film of the 80’s. As well as Lynch’s most successful. I’ve never seen another film speak more eloquently, that is, terrifyingly, of America’s schizoid psyche. Plus the stunning use of color, and Isabella Rosselini’s glamour: who could ask for more?
yes. “blue velvet” is definitely one of the jewels of the postmodern era of american cinema. that film will live on.
I’m sorry folk’s but for those of us that want to make film’s. The way this man captures mood and tone is utterly amazing and not an easy thing to create. The fact that this man has created a world that we can look at and get totally LOST in is beautiful and a gift. The man is quirky yes, but realize he understands the rules of the game. The filmmaker game that sinks so many ships on a daily basis. Good for him to control his destiny. Something we can kneel and pray happens to us. He understands what it means to be visual artist in a capitalistic world. I totally respect the man, the fact he doesn’t explain his film’s is a right. A right that as a person he is giving you. Something to chew on and for you to figure out were it takes you, not were it takes him. I personally love all his film from the straight story to the utterly almost unwatchable dune. He has given us real life “the elephant man”, he has given us sex “lost highway”, and even created a whole community in “twin peaks”. Like the last post stated it is a gift to have him creating. For those of you that question him as filmaker please watch the straight story and the elephant man.Nuff Said!
pal, have you seen inland empire??
An interviewer asked Robert Altman why the character in Nashville shot the singer. Altman said: “I don’t know. I’m showing you what happened, I’m not telling you WHY it happened. I don’t know WHY it happened, I just know that it did”.
I don’t claim to know the meaning of David Lynch’s films. I doubt he does either. They’re dreams and dream images.
I can return to them repeatedly.
I love Angelo Badalamenti’s music but it wouldn’t occur to me to ask what it MEANS.
But I know that I can watch the opening of Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet over and over again and be captivated every time.
David Lynch is a musician.
He became overrated the second he made Inland Empire. Dune is bad, otherwise his other films deserve the praise they get.
I don’t understand this ‘Inland Empire as overrated’ sentiment. Everybody hates Inland Empire.
I think it’s worth a lot more praise than it’s getting, but you have to be approaching it from the right standpoint. Key to that is understanding Lynch’s creative process for the work, in effect writing a scene at night, filming it during the day, filming ideas rather than a cohesive narrative. And it’s because of this that Inland Empire works like a fractal, in that it’s a series of reflections, each having “something” to do with the other pieces. I think it’s a masterwork in tone in particular, Lynch creates a mood of oppression at time that is absolutely awe-inspiring, working with the set design and, of course, the sound design which is particularly fantastic for it.
I really wonder if any of the “nay sayers” of Inland Empire saw the damn film projected on the big screen? As a So Cal Native I had the privelage of viewing the film in Pasadena in the theater—how Lynch specifically told the audience it had to be seen (you have all seen the video with Lynch discussing viewing films on a phone—OUCH!).
INLAND EMPIRE was breath taking. All ten of us in that theater were speechless and went home only to think and discuss—not our critical fondling or Freudian Subtext BS…just hardcore inquisition with ourselves.
I watched the film on DVD when it was released—and it was not the same. Nor should it be—INLAND was meant for the big screen so I will judge it based on that magical experience.
And “overrated.???” I think this word is silly in terms of Inland Empire. Nobody has ever really mentioned the film to me—and most people I know have never seen it or will EVER see it. IE is a film people will cling to in years when Lynch moves on to another world…IE is a Van Gogh—worthless for now and legendary in the future.
exactly Brad. It’s just too bad that IE didn’t get proper distribution. I also saw it in Pasadena and by the time the three hours went by, I was wrung out. Lynch was back! And Laura Dern was incredible. I couldn’t f*&%#ing believe how great that movie was. Btw, I’m terrible at comparing versions of films, but was the theatrical release different than the version that came out on dvd?
Thanks Prudence. I believe the films are identical (DVD and theater) -it just never registered with me-even on my 61" late at night! HA HA HA…just didn’t have that magic. IE really was amazing though—and I say that with all of my bearings fully in tact.
I also saw Mulholland Drive the first day it came out in the theater and actually had mixed feelings. I loved the intro, felt a little bored in the middle—and waited for the cowboy to come around…THEN watched it on DVD and fell in LOVE with it. So Lynch’s films are so atmopsheric to me you really have to understand the complexity he is working with—he has texture, depth, light, and a “glow.” Throw all of that together and sometimes it is overwhelming for people wanting a quick fix (99% of even those calling themselves “cinephiles”).
PS. I recently ran into Lynch in Hollywood and talked to him about any film projects—he responded that he was doing many other “things” right now with photography and other mediums and had nothing at all going into film at the moment. I know this can all change—but he did produce some amazing photographs for the famed French shoe designer Christian Louboutin if you get a chance to see them—beautiful photography….
Google “Louboutin + David Lynch”
Reminds me of something De Palma once said. I am paraphrasing so don’t quote me on this but De Palma said he wished Lynch worked the system like he did—make a film for the studio (Mission Impossible, Untouchables etc…), then take your power and make one for yourself………(Femme Fatale, Raising Cain, etc…). De Palma said that it was unfortunate Lynch can never compromise and make anything outside of himself as he would get to make more “Lynch” films. I disagree with De Palma, as Lynch would no longer be Lynch…but this realization alone tells us something—he is one of the only voices out there unwilling and/or unable to see past their own vision. And this is a great thing.
Personally, I’ve always respected directors who can bounce between commercial and personal and not bring a sweat: Soderbergh, Gordon Greene, Van Sant, etc. It’s getting harder and harder to keep yourself alive by making independent movies in America. As much as we’d all like a world where we could live off of making art, we don’t live in a world like that. Artists have to compromise. I have nothing but respect for Lynch for not giving in, but there’s no denying his filmography is smaller than it could have been if he had gone mainstream for a film or two. Soderbergh’s churning out films at least once every two years, sometimes more frequently than that, even, and you can definitely attribute that to him making stuff like Ocean’s and Erin Brockovich. Because of those mainstream efforts, he has so much more freedom and funding to make his own project. Ideally, Soderbergh and other independent filmmakers would get funding simply because they’re good directors and because they deserve it, but, again, that’s not how it works. I’m tremendously satisfied with Lynch and his work, and if he never makes another film again, he has left us an excellent filmography anyhow. I won’t deny that I’d love to see at least one more pure Lynch film before he goes, but INLAND EMPIRE does sort of seem like his swan song. It’s a great end to a great career, and it would remain so even if he died before making another film. He seems to be doing stuff other than film currently, and I respect that. I’ll support whatever kind of art he wants to give us.
He can’t do surreal as well as Bunuel, and he can’t do creepy as well as Cronenberg.
I totally agree, but I enjoy his films anyway. I can come back to them anytime and get something new.
Surrealism was a movement that died long long ago…you cannot compare Bunuel to Lynch—totally different ballgame. Surrealism has now become a term for the ignorant when something appears a “bit odd.” Bunuel was in the apple container and Lynch is in the meat department.
And why compare to Cronenberg? This thread is getting a bit silly now.
If you want a steak go to a steakhouse. If you want vegetables go to a farmer’s market. Case closed.
I think there are comparisons to Cronenberg that could be made, but they certainly have nothing to do with the ‘creepiness’ factor, in my opinion.
And IE really did get me on the small screen, I have to admit. I loved it, but then again, watching it in the dark, alone at three in the morning I adopt a sort of ‘religious’ mood and can really get engrossed in films.
I haven’t seen Inland Empire yet, so my response doesn’t include it.
(And does anyone else miss double features like I do?)
To me, David Lynch’s work appeals to a different part of the mind and heart, which is why his films can seem so alien.
When he is at his best, he works from his own subconscious, blind to anything but his vision. (Blue Velvet, The Elephant Man which is sadly underappreciated, Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive).
When he is lost on me is when it seems like he has one eye on the audience and he is self-consciously making a “David Lynch film” (as Andrew Kay said above it’s as though the joke was on us, the audience: Wild at Heart, Fire Walk With Me)
(Sorry, I hit SEND twice, cant seem to delete it)
I don’t know of any other American filmmaker who even comes remotely close to Lynch in surrealism. He IS the American surrealist filmmaker. He’s made several straight-up linear films over the years, i.e. Elephant Man and Straight Story, which he showed he could do as well, if not better, than any other mainstream director, but it’s the films that come straight out of his subconscious that distinguish him from everyone else – a practice he dared implement at the risk of ruining his career. Instead, trusting his visions have paid off, and he’s all the better for it. Watching a Lynch film is like a combination trip to the theatre and museum at the same time.
In defence of Inland Empire, I would say that it is for David Lynch what 8 1/2 was for Fellini, the epitome of a director’s style and theme within a single masterpiece, a sort of Mulholland Drive: Extreme with all the Hollywood satire and surrealist delight he conjures so effortlessly. It was probably the most singular experience I have ever witnessed in a cinema and felt like an all out assault on the senses that lasted three hours and burned the image of Laura Dern onto my brain for life. It doesn’t live up to the same intensity on DVD, so I understand those who dislike it if this is the format they watched it on, but in a cinema it completely absorbs and transfixes you. In terms of arresting cinema, Lynch has never done it better.
And that’s before we include Mulholland Drive, The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet. So no, ‘overrated’ is completely off the mark in my opinion.
i’m really looking forward to seeing “inland empire”… some day. i’ve heard nothing but people raving about it on this site ever since i joined.
I am always baffled by how intelligent and subversive people can hate on Lynch. He doesn’t make films for escapist or sentimental reasons, he doesn’t want to make things easy for you. He’s like sudoku, only more fun. I agree with Prudence. There was nothing going on in the early 80s except Stranger Than Paradise, and then all of a sudden there was Blue Velvet. That film could not be ignored. It was like someone switched the lights on in a very dark room and thundered, “Let there be again!” We were all tremendously excited.
Justin – There were only two films in the 80s that really turned me on to how thought-provoking and daring film can be: Blue Velvet and Brazil. When I saw these films, I couldn’t believe it was possible. Being the young, inexperienced guy I was, these films really turned me into an afficianado. I didn’t get turned onto the Jarmusch films until much later, and the same goes for many a foreign film. So, I know what you mean when you speak of that “excitement.”
I find it disturbing that people find David Lynch’s movies overrated. Because they’re not. At all. They deserve more praise than what they receive.
Juno is overrated. Little Miss Sunshine is overrated. Slumdog Millionaire is overrated. Quentin Tarantino may be overrated.
But nothing by David Lynch. Who’s heard of him, anyway? :)
David Lynch is not overrated. If anything, he’s UNDERrated by the moviegoing public at large. Very few other filmmakers in the US are making provocative, exciting, ridiculous, funny, scary movies like Lynch. Guy Maddin comes close (artistically and geographically) but Lynch is, like Welles and Chaplin were, ONE OF A KIND…and there aren’t many of them in the current cinema.
Silla
No