Why do some people think Lynch is "pretentious" literally the most honest and unpretentious filmmaker there is

Why do some people think Lynch is "pretentious" literally the most honest and unpretentious filmmaker there is

Other urls found in this thread:

xixax.com/halfborn/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

He's not pretentious. Some of his fans are just annoying and people dislike him by association.

The only people who call lynch pretentious don't know what the word pretentious means

He requires the audience to ponder the visuals along with the narrative, leaving people who only watch for the plot, left wanting. Basically plebs don't get it and have to demean to save face.

Surrealism is linked to pretentiousness by a good amount of people and he just so happens to be the most famous surrealist director outside of, maybe, Dali.

Because pseuds adore him for "symbolism" in his movies and completely miss the point that he's not trying to convey a specific message but replicate the feelings he got from going to theaters, the lights coming down, and the curtains parting

Retards think any movie that doesn't spoonfeed everything to them is pretentious, god forbid they have use their brain for even one second

Actual pretentious cinema would be the masturbatory drivel Europe was producing in the sixties

People fear what they do not understand

>Actual pretentious cinema would be the masturbatory drivel Europe was producing in the sixties

what did he mean by this

>tfw think that Godard's visuals and direction are magnificent but his preachy "messages" and politics are fucking drivel

I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies,Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.

>people who look deep into lynch films and pretend like there is some deeper meaning/symbolism or some retarded shit

He just films whatever he wants to/whatever comes to mind. Anyone seeking some deeper meaning is looking in the wrong place.

Most honest would be Malick, but Lynch is not pretentious either.

Sounds like a personal issue
>faux intellectual
You cannot prove this

death of the author user

Looking for messages and symbolism is fun, I give zero shits if any of it was intentional

pretty much, how can something be pretentious if he has no idea what he's making himself?

It's a Bergman quote.

False and it does injustice to his films. What is shown is not completely meaningless. Inland Empire, for example, is extraordinarily well thought out.

He filmed a ridiculous amount of footage and created the story in editing for that movie. It's thought out in editing, but he did really just shoot whatever came to mind.

>Inland Empire, for example, is extraordinarily well thought out.
lol

you mean the movie where the script would change every day depending on the dreams he had the night before?

>"You may say that people look for meaning in everything, but they don't. They've got life going on around them, but they don't look for meaning there. They look for meaning when they go to a movie. I don't know why people expect art to make sense when they accept the fact that life doesn't make sense."

That's exact opposite of pretense. He's an extremely frank, realistic man and because of that he's one of the only filmmakers I still admire in my adult life.

He also has great taste, I would to see a physical list of his 100 favorite movies

stupid people instantly associate any kind of surreal/abstract art they don't get with "pretentiousness".

That is nonsense

*I would love to see*

People are always seeking meaning in their lives, take a look at fucking religion

He can't weasel out of this just by saying Forget it Jake it's Chinatown

xixax.com/halfborn/

And I suppose the second act in Mulholland Drive isn't her waking up and facing reality?

>the "real" scenes of Mulholland Drive
>more surreal, dreamlike and hard to believe than the first half
Not sure I understood

He's not weaseling his way out of anything. That's the most honest answer I've ever heard from an artist of any kind. Not everything necessarily "means" something in the sense that it has a prescribed symbolism, and it doesn't really have to for it to work. Some things are just there because they are there. If he was a pretentious man, he'd be saying the opposite.

The "real" part of Mulholland Drive is shot in an entirely different way as well, without that soft fuzz that's prevalent in the rest of the movie. It's much more textured and less stylized.

He's either dishonest or stupid if he thinks most people just accept that their lives are meaningless, considering all of the evidence to the contrary. People look for symbolism in real-life events all the time, just look at all the religious nuts and conspiracy theorists.

I love his movies and and don't subscribe to the idea that they are rife with intentional symbolism, but if that quote is genuine it makes him seem a bit daft

In Mulholland drive Watson is dreaming up a different world in which she hasn't hired a hitman to kill her crush. Betty is Diane, Rita is Camilla. Sure, his more abstract films like Eraserhead resist a definite interpretation, but that doesn't mean the baby shouldn't represent anything, that Lynch doesn't play with ideas or hints at things what it might possibly be.

To claim Lost Highway or his other films don't mean anything at all is completely disregarding a huge part of Lynch's films.

Yes I know, but why were the "real" scenes (the scenes after she wakes up and faces reality) the more surreal and dreamlike of the two halves of the film?

cuz reality is stranger than fiction nigga

I think you're getting words mixed up here. There's a difference between looking for an explanation and looking for "meaning." When people delve into conspiracies, they're looking for an explanation. They following a congo line of "How"s, not "Why"s. As for religion, I'd say that people treat it more as a clumsy way to opt out of the big questions than to quench a thirst for meaning. In general, people DO NOT search for intrinsic meaning in the life around them. I wouldn't call you dishonest or stupid for saying otherwise, but I will tell you that you're about as wrong as you could possibly fucking be.
Regardless, the thing that he's really talking about his own work. It is not "rife with intentional symbolism," and he's saying that this is okay, because neither is life itself. The impression I've always gotten from his films is that he's more about creating a mood and sensations at any cost. If you really do love his movies, then I think you'd agree he does that wonderfully, and probably wouldn't be able to pull it off half as well if he had a blueprint for symbolism that he was having to follow.

She isn't dreaming, I remember somewhere that lynch said he doesn't like filming dreams because they cannot be captured right. Dreamlike =/= dreams. The entire thing is just an introduction to the simple story (jealous lover hires hitman) that uses the introduction as the main substance to the movie itself.

Also mulholland drive is one of the worst films to seek symbolism or meaning in because it was never even meant to be what it is, about 80% of it was shot for a television pilot and when that was turned down it was just finished as a movie.

fair enough

Probably because she's going mental, realises she's not in that world, can't bare what she did, etc. But if you agree with what I said, that there is more to Lynch's films plotwise, try and find out the meanings in his other films. It's intriguing and rewarding.

>dune

SPOILER
Lynch says a lot of things, also that he hates to interpret his own movies or give anything away. It's probably wise not to accept what Lynch is saying there as he's got his own agenda. I agree that dreamlike does not equal dreams and that it is an important thing to keep in mind while analysing Lynch's films. But in case of Mulholland Drive, acknowleding all the hints and evidence, it's a dream, right? Even if it supposedly isn't a dream (which is false), Lynch planted all these clues for a reason: to suggest it's a dream. So either it's just a dream, or it's both a dream AND not a dream.

It's a fantasy presented as a dream

I think it's because his films are stuffed with red herrings and odd scenes that make it even more difficult to extract meaning from an already unclear plot. This, combined with the fact that he seems to enjoy making films that don't deliver a specific meaning but rather beg each individual to take from it what they will, can be a little irritating.

Lynch has no issue stringing a bunch of loosely related scenes together and making the audience fill in the blanks. While it can be enjoyable at times, it feels a little lazy and pointless at others.

Well, what kind of fantasy is it? It can't explain what's happening in the movie, doesn't explain the break, renders everything meaningless, whereas a dream interpretation can explain nearly everything that's happening. Like I said, even if it's a fantasy presented as a dream (but it's unlikely as there isn't a lot of material to back this up), it's at the same time a dream.

I just wish he'd make something as unique as Eraserhead again.

Lynch is what I call an emotional director. He wants to engage your emotions. He puts things in the movies that don't really have any clear logical meaning, those things that came up to his head and he decided to film. It's not just "oh let's film this idea lel so quirky", it's "I have this visual image that is striking and emotionally engaging in my head and I am going to film it".
Trying to extract clear statements is the wrong way to watch a Lynch movie. He is not looking to entertain your brain by making you feel smart for understanding some complex message. It's also why I think his films are so subjective, people who don't get an emotional response from them are left with nothing.

I misquoted, sorry

he raped his daughter and made a tv show about it. is he /our guy/?

Pretentious is codeword for "I don't like his movies because I can't really tell what happens"
Same thing with Malick in a different way. It's pretty odd to hear people call Tree of Life pretentious when all Malick ever gives is complete sincerity.

Pretentious is codeword for "I don't like his movies because he clearly goes out of his way to be as obscure and as inaccessible as possible. His visual storytelling would be amazing if there was actually a story being told. Instead it's like walking through an art gallery and trying to invent some narrative to tie each painting together but inevitably, something will be left out and will ruin the whole thing."

He's not pretentious but his fans are.

>but inevitably, something will be left out and will ruin the whole thing."
And what would that be?

this, he might have the most pseud fanbase, at least here.

>faux intellectual
>le critic bait meme

Why is this the only argument plebs can muster up? Are their brains really that small and underdeveloped?

I agree with you on almost everything you said, that he's an emotional directer, engages emotions, that his movies doesn't have a clear logical meaning (that doesn't mean there's none and I believe that everything you see is meaningless), and he often used the method you described. His films also aren't 'just' an intellectual exercise, which is completely misrepresenting his work and the surreal, weird, dreamlike nature of his work, which indeed makes the work subjective (especially in films like Eraserhead). But there are nevertheless a lot of hints and gestures implanted in his films to create ambiguity, to suggest a meaning, sometimes a plot. There's more to Lynch films, and please read the article I posted. It's amazing and I would like to see if it changes your view.

One painting, one scene. There's always something to trip up any analysis of his films. After I watched Eraserhead for the second time I went to look up explanations of what it all meant. I couldn't find anything that was able to reconcile everything in the movie together. Some theories made a lot of sense, but still weren't perfect.

of all his movies you pick inland empire? cmon man

Personally I thought Eraserhead was so evocative and beautiful that any subtext or depth to it was really secondary. I didn't really think his other films have that same beauty.

I don't think that he doesn't create plots and messages whatsoever, there's no doubt that some intelligent, thought-driven thought (rather than emotional-driven) is put into his movies, but generally speaking I think that's how he wants to engage his viewers. It's an approach to engaging the viewer that exists more in music and painting than in film.
I'll read that article!
I get what you're saying, but I personally don't think that this one missing painting even needs to exist. Why does it all need to make sense? Eraserhead never tried making a lot of sense in the first place, and whatever theories people make they will always come from the viewer., not from Lynch himself. Beyond the fear of parenthood which is fairly obvious in Eraserhead, it's all speculation. You can say that it's a cop-out in a way, and I can totally see the logic in calling it a cop-out, but I don't think logic is meant to be used in the first place.

Ingmar Bergman was a pleb? Wew lad.

>evocative and beautiful
In a disgusting and repugnant sort of way, right? Maybe I'm being too harsh when I can still clearly remember the visuals of Eraserhead despite not having watched it in some time.

I don't mind a philosophical and hard to understand story, so long as it exists. Are you saying I missed the point of Eraserhead and should be more focused on the visuals for what they are, rather than what they might mean?

>Eraserhead never tried making a lot of sense in the first place
It's my natural assumption that movies just make sense or at least intend to do so. I never really considered an illogical film as even really being a film, which might explain my frustration.

>it's all speculation
True but in interviews, it doesn't even seem like Lynch had a firm grasp on what he was creating.

>You can say that it's a cop-out in a way
I think in general I might say it's a cop-out, but I feel like that implies some lack of dedication which I don't really feel from Lynch.

I kind of agree with this sentiment. I stopped after his "cinematic period". Weekend was fantastic but the socialists in his films come off just as ridiculous as the bourgeois peeps. Like the famous line is "my hermes handbag" which mocks the driving consumerist culture, but the communist tractor driver and the nonsensical intellectuals seem to indicate the goddard is taking on all comers

Am I not turtely enough for the turtle club?