Pretentious hipster bullshit or masterpiece?

Pretentious hipster bullshit or masterpiece?

bullshit masterpiece

hipsters don't like this and lynch is the complete opposite of pretentious

I liked it quite a bit.

Interesting, challenging work of art
Not a great narrative film, as such

I didn't like it until the credits. Then it became my favorite movie.

The world may never know..

Masterpiece. I'm looking forward to Twin Peaks season 3, which is clearly going to be INLAND EMPIRE 2. Amazingly some people who claim to have seen Twin Peaks think that it's going to give them a coherent narrative. Ho ho!

High quality filmmaking. Truly Lynch is a master.

You think you're being sarcastic, but who would think of this? The train of thought is incredible, genuinely nightmarish.

I fucking love it but I wish it was made with a slightly better camera, an HD at most.

I was being sarcastic but I'm just messing around, I love IE. There's an interesting passage from Catching the Big Fish regarding that scene. It always stood out as looking less refined than the rest of the movie, and that's probably because it was one of the first scenes filmed.

>When we began there wasn't any Inland Empire, there wasn't anything. I just bumped into Laura Dern on the street, discovering that she was my new neighbor. I hadn't seen her for a long time and she said, "David, we've got to do something together again," and I said, "We sure do. Maybe I'll write something for you and maybe we'll do it as an experiment for the Internet," and she said, "Fine."
>So I wrote a 14-page monologue and Laura memorized all 14 pages, and it was about a 70-minute take and she was so phenomenal. I couldn't release it on the Internet because it was too good and it drove me crazy because there was something about this that held a secret for more and I would ponder over this thing and something more would emerge, and that would lead to another scene but I wouldn't know what in the world it was and it didn't really make much sense. But then another idea would come for another scene, and maybe this one, the third one, was very far removed from the first two, even though the second was quite a jump from the first.

>One day we were getting ready to shoot a scene called "The Little House" which involved Laura and my friend Krzysztof, an actor from Poland. Krzysztof arrived in Los Angeles fresh from Poland and the Camerimage gang brought him over to my house. When he got out the car he was wearing these goofy glasses, and he smiled and pointed to the glasses so I got the idea that he planned to wear these things in the scene and I said, “No, no, no Krzysztof,” and he said, “I need a prop, I need a thing.”
>So I went into my office and opened up the cupboard and saw a little piece of broken tile, I saw a rock, and I saw a red light bulb, but very transparent like a Christmas light. I took these things out and offered him a choice. “Take one of these Krzysztof,” and he picked up the bulb. I put the other things away, I wasn’t gonna let him have those anymore, I just gave him the bulb. So we went out to the small house and Krzysztof came out from behind a tree with the red bulb in his mouth, and that’s how we shot the scene.

>So one thing led to another. I really had this feeling that if there’s a unified field, there must be a unity between the Christmas tree bulb and this man from Poland who came in wearing these strange glasses. It’s interesting to see how these unrelated things live together and it gets your mind working. How do these things relate when they seem so far apart? It conjures up a third thing that almost unifies those first two. It’s a struggle to see how this unity in the midst of diversity could go to work. The ocean is the unity and these things float on it. And I thought, “Well obviously, there’s got to be a way these relate ‘cause of this great unified field.” There couldn’t be a fragment that doesn’t relate to everything. It’s all kinda one thing I felt.
>So I had high hopes that there would be a unity emerging, that I would see the way things all related one to another. But it wasn’t until halfway through that suddenly, I saw a kind of form that would unite the rest, everything that had come before, and that was a big day. That was a good day because I could pretty much say that it would be a feature film.

To me that would take away from the whole texture of it, he was using the qualities specific to digital. HD has the option of looking like a vegan imitation of 35mm, or dog-ugly. I miss dat softness.

Thanks for transcribing this user, I've got the book but it was good to read again.

why not both?

David lynch experiments with digital. Only redditors see it as more than this.

No, that was the intervalometer experiment series.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc-nZbhN_Dw

I wish Lynch still did little internet shorts.

most boring "film" i have ever seen, far worse than my dinner with andre

reddi/tv/ tricked me into thinking it would be "unsettling" or "interesting"

really its just a bunch of retards doing dumb useless shit for literally 3 hours with no plot on a 10$ budget

ive watched better films made by high schoolers, no joke

inb4 "u just didnt get it lol!!!!"

no, its fucking trash, just admit you would have turned it off 20mins in if it didnt have lynchs name slapped on it

u just didnt get it lol!!!!

>tfw i got halfway trhrough and just couldn't imbibe anymore

feels like i needed to be under the influence to keep going

>lynch is the complete opposite of pretentious
Funny joke, kid.

Still have not finished it, its very boring . Best Lynch kino is Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet and Lost Highway

I've never seen a lynch film but I'm interested in giving them a shot, where should I start? Are any of them going to resemble coherence?

Start with Blue Velvet or Eraserhead, Then watch Mulholland drive and then you can watch his other projects

This
David Lynch's films are intelligent to a fault.

Eraserhead is his only "must see". The rest are good if you're a certain kind of person but the average person probably wouldn't like them.

Has some great stuff in it but also a LOT of self-indulgent shit. Needed to be two hours!!!FACT!!!

I need to rewatch it again, I loved it during my first viewing and that's odd because it's 3 fucking hours long and I usually get sleepy, but this one kept me right there

Regarding the question and ignoring Inland Empire, most normie pleb masses think art or serious films like this are pretentious, boring and shit

Start with his short films - grandmother and alphabet

Then watch eraserhead, lost highway and mulholland drive

Masterpiece. Very few films achieve a quality that I can only describe as "tangible". This one did it, and did so in a deeply unsettling, infinitely complex way. People say "don't try to understand lynch films, just feel them". But David understands what he's making. I'm convinced almost none of his films are simple exercises in tone. But whether your understanding and his line up doesn't matter at all. The way this movie affects the subconscious is universal, but the actual understanding of what is happening is specific to each viewer, and that's pretty cool. I like the majority of the movie takes place during a woman's last dying moments. There's a specific scene, and then the rest of he film is that woman's conscious journeying through the afterlife. Now perhaps this understanding that I've come to is a big reason why I really loved the film and others found it pointless. However I think it's still worth the watch for the conglomeration of crazy scenes, related in your mind or not.

Blue Velvet and Eraserhead for sure. The former is perhaps his most accessible and straight forward. The latter is his first film, and one that is short and sweet and gives you an idea of how he uses the surreal to build a tone or atmosphere. From there, there are two routes. If you want to see his "normal" films, watch The Straight Stort and Elephant Man. Dune could also fall under this category. The other path is the one down his weird and Lynchian films. Wild at Heart is the easiest to follow but perhaps one of his least consistent. Mulholland Drive is widely considered his masterpiece. It gives a nice taste of his surrealism and how he structures reality and false reality. However I watched it after Lost Highway and found it to feel watered down and kind of pointless. Lost Highway is similar, but a good bit harder to follow and more visceral and "unnatural". Finally there's Inland Empire. His magnum opus and by far least accessible film. It's extremely experimental and very unclear about what is real and what isn't. It's deeply unsettling and, in my opinion, is about the journey the conscious takes through life and death.

Twin Peaks is very much worth watching as well, though not entirely Lynch. Fire Walk With Me, his prequel movie, is very much entirely him. Perhaps one of the only truly scary movies ever made and very different from the show.

David Lynch's only masterpiece is his haircut

unironically this

I didn't know what the he'll it was about, but I enjoyed watching it, it was as scary and unsettling as anything else Lynch did, but I really don't remember anything that was inherently scary, unlike the fucked up parts in Blue Velvet or Eraserhead. It scared me more than either of those though.

Its a deep film about human beings relationship to the medium of film. From both the confusion an actor can feel becomibf a character as well as the viewer and there relationship of vecoming the character onscreen. I suggest rewatchting it. There are also a bunch of moments that deconstruct and critisize certain types of film from talk shows to music videos.

yeah normies will hate the new season and I won't blame them

Watch these in this order for essential Lynch (these are in order of release and I've excluded his mediocre movies and his Disney movie, Straight Story, which is good but not a reflection of his style):
1. Eraserhead
2. Elephant Man
3. Blue Velvet
4. Twin Peaks Season 1 (or at least the pilot to get the gist of it. If you end up watching the whole series, check out Fire Walk With Me)
5. Lost Highway
6. Mulholland Drive
7. Inland Empire

Have you seen Dumbland?

Pleb filter of the highest order, hipsters wouldn't even go anywhere near this movie because it's in digital.

Are you me?

I honestly think Mulholland Drive is one of his worst. Too on the nose, too obvious, nothing deeper going on besides Hollywood abuse and other movies are much better at that (The Lost Boys for example).

Blue Velvet is by far his best. His shot composition and blocking is without comparison. The first time I saw it, I wondered why he kept framing shots the same way and from similar angles, making me aware I was watching something, like theater. But then I watched it on DXM and realized that was the whole point.

Eraserhead is good, but the abstract parts at the beginning and end overshine the rest of the film. Twin Peaks is good, but there's a lot of filler in Season 2.

Lost Highway is probably his second best film. Reminds me a lot of Eyes Wide Shut at points, I'm pretty sure Micheal Haneke ripped off a lot of Cache from that movie (he even admitted he only cast Naomi Watts in the remake of Funny Games because of seeing her in Mulholland Drive).

Elephant Man was alright I guess. I definitely feel like Under the Skin was referencing it, only they got a real dude with elephantiasus instead of faking it. Surprised no one has mentioned Dune. Yeah its kind of shitty, but there's something I always liked about it, like the Super Mario Bros movie.

>everything that deviates from formal standards is pretentious.
>everyone who makes formally different media and is also eccentric is pretentious.

Go join a convent.

Its a work of genius. His second best film. His best is easily Mulholland Drive.

Blue Velvet is completely overrated. And Eraser head is so naive that its laughable. They were early works though, and they show a lot of promise, but are clearly the works of a young and inexperienced creative person.

Inland Empire and Mulholland Drive are the culminations of a life of creative thought and experiment. They are thematically honed and aesthetically refined to a masterful level.

Mulholland Drive is just style over substance. The shots are pretty and soft, but have no meaning. Everything he does he did better in Blue Velvet. More fucked up dark-haired woman, more innocent blonde haired woman, cooler dark-haired guy, better fake singing of a Roy Orbison song, and much more profound ending. It's just better.

I have to disagree, because I see Mulholland drive as a masterful way of derailing exceptions of cinematic and narrative conventions, causing discomfort both from the things depicted, but also from the editing and continuity.

The formal aspects fit so well with the content, the very purposeful use of soft lighting and old hollywood, LA, aesthetics. This all sets up a really unsettling feeling in the narrative, and sort of reveals the underlying psyches of archetypes we see in narratives and exposes a few realities behind them.

Blue Velvet is good, but I think it's a lot less thought out. It has its good points; It seems more passionate, less restrained, but also less crafted as a result. It seems like fairly simple Freudian surrealism experiment, albeit a very well staged and directed one.

Mulholland Drive is just feels like he's trying to fit EVERY genre into a film, and I can easily tell it was meant to be a TV series. Had it actually become a TV show, it may well have been one of the greatest ever made.

But as it is, it simply moves in too many directions in too short of a time period. It tries to cover too much territory, and by the ending, I always just feel exhausted. Maybe that's the point, but that really isn't that difficult to achieve.

Blue Velvet, and I genuinely don't know why, is somehow deeply uplifting. There is something sublimating about every impulse in the film, every action is taken because a character really wants to do something else but simply cannot. I don't know why this isn't depressing, but it just isn't.

Also, I feel like it is actually VERY restrained and almost formal. The way he uses very few camera angles for his shots (usually, at most, two), little camera movement, and shows much less of what's really going on (the scene where Dorothy goes into the backroom and we never actually see what was going on in there for example). There's just more distance between the camera and the subject, he does all these techniques to make us more aware of our act of observation, like a voyeur or someone watching monkeys brawl and fuck at the zoo.

Mulholland Drive has better acting, and has better production design because of a much bigger budget, but all that just gives it this Hollywood polish that makes everything a lot less terrifying. Think Salo vs A Serbian Film. Yes, the later SHOULD be more terrifying, but it isn't because it's too high budget and the former is very old and kind of shitty looking, which actually works in its favor.