What is it with dumb teenagers and this fucking movie?

what is it with dumb teenagers and this fucking movie?
every retard that listens to shoegaze and other shit music they don't like to form some sort of 'cool' personality regard this movie as a masterpiece of cinema but can't explain a single aspect of the movie when you ask them about it

why is this? why do thousands of these people watch this movie and go around saying it's the best thing they've ever seen when they can't discuss a single aspect of it or just chuckle and say only some people can grasp it
they aren't intellectuals that grasp a certain intention behind it's creation, i swear this is the Sup Forumscore of film

Are you mad that you're not special for liking it?

Idk I just thought it was really interesting, nothing like it had been done before, why are you so mad lol?

I think it's a good movie, I think it has very interesting use of sound, and I think it's absolutely worth discussion

I have a problem with the fact that you can't be around people interested in film, join a group related to film discussion, or bring up avant garge filmmaking without having some ez-cheese dick numale rave off about how it's the best thing to ever happen

I kind of got you were going for an attack of vague faultless praise but why make a fucking thread then?

You might want to quit giving attention to uneducated retarded millennial teenagers when it comes to Lynch or any other cinema auteur for that matter. You will only find yourself contemplating the void user.

i'm bored and waiting for my chinese food to arrive

Because everyone else is merely a guest star in your one-man show. This world revolves around you and only you.

Lynch goes more with pizza. Quintessentially American

Like most of Lynch's cinematic diarrhea, hipster pseuds like to pretend it has profound meaning.

>shoegaze
Why do people (pretend to?) like this genre? It managed to produce one (1) compelling album ever and then nothing more.

I can’t imagine talking about this movie with someone IRL after masturbating to the woman in the radiator.

It's a dead genre, there's not a lot of music like it. Loveless is good, but I haven't heard anything extraordinary other than that. The dream pop that came after it is superior, in my opinion.

>ez-cheese dick numale
user's upset over the fact that he was cut as a baby :-D

there no "profound" meaning it was just about fear of commitment and becoming an adult done in complete fucking abstract

the sound is amazing in that move. And it has a cool, surreal feel that few other movies have.

Other than that, it's not noteworthy.

What's a film that really does have "profound meaning" in your opinion? Eraserhead is pretty straightforward, but it's very effective and relatable on an emotional level. The guy is scared shitless of becoming a father and a husband. The movie is a nightmarish worst-case scenario where the child is a deformed monster and the mother leaves him to deal with it alone. It's got a unique industrial aesthetic and dream-logic storytelling that makes it feel original and cool. And no, I don't think I'm a genius for noticing these things, I just think it's a good fucking movie

He's right though, a lot of people completely misunderstand Lynch and believe him to be some sort of profound and deep thinker, which couldn't be further from the truth.

On the other hand, a lot of people believe that the abscence of "profound depth" renders a work artistically invalid, which also could not be farther from the truth.

Intolerance is better than anything David Lynch could ever hope to make.

>abscence of "profound depth" renders a work artistically invalid, which also could not be farther from the truth.
middlebrow anti-intellectual "muh feels" pseudo-pundits like you need to be purged.

I honestly think he is a "profound deep thinker." He's not the fucking second coming of Christ or anything, but he's a smart, thoughtful, daring & innovative storyteller and filmmaker.

I think I get where you're coming from, in that his movies aren't like a puzzle where you're supposed to decode every image and "solve" it, most of the surreal stuff is meant for raw emotional impact, like abstract art. But he's using those techniques to dig very deep into his characters. He does a kind of "internal character study" using thoughts, dreams, fantasies, etc that's common in literature, but rare to see it visualized on film like this.

Films like Lost Highway, Eraserhead and Inland Empire are some of the most memorable, impactful experiences I've had with movies. Lynch really is one of the greats. You don't have to downplay it just because normies enjoy him in a faggy way. He deserves the praise

Form > Content

Formally, Intolerance is unsurpassed by anything

I would not disagree, it does however not diminish Lynch's stature as one of the great contemporary formalists.
Yes, he does touch on a lot of eternal, grand themes. But what I mean is as you say, that he should not be understood as privy to some esoteric meaning or as a symbolist.

David Lynch hasn't done anything new let alone good. It's all impressionable wank meant to submerge you in paranoia and discomfort. Subtlety is a nonexistent term in David Lynch's vocabulary.
Also
>Amerifats
not once - ever

shit pretentious nonsense

fuck off poofter, I'm gonna see mogwai next week and I'm more chadesque and patrician than you, also rating lost highway over this

David "let me just add low frequency bass and call it a day" Lynch

Christ, imagine actually posting that. You sound like such a pseud. You're so desperate to seem intelligent, aren't you? You're a "film studies" faggot through and through. There are hundreds of thousands like you, unfortunately. You're not special.

He is a symbolist, though. Using symbolism isn't some kind of mind-blowing superpower, almost all filmmakers do it, it's an inherent part of using images to tell a story. Lynch does it quite well.

Blue Velvet has the bugs underneath the grass to set up the whole theme of an "underworld" behind this Norman Rockwell-ish community, then the ear in the grass as a "gateway" into that underworld, matched with similar shots of Jeffrey's ear as a "gateway" into the darker parts of his own mind that attract him to that underworld. Mulholland Drive has those horror-film images of a rotting homeless person in the trash heap behind a diner to symbolize the ultimate "nightmare" of a failed, poorly planned career. Lost Highway is all about imperfect memories and the intentional repression, ignorance and self-deception we do to keep ourselves sane, and the "devil" in that story uses a video camera as his main "weapon." And so on, with his other films too.

He's widely liked and very accessible, so I get that a bunch of college-freshman stoners have kind of ruined the image with too much "whoooooaaa, mind=blown" shit, but Lynch isn't responsible for his fanbase. The depth really is there if you wanna look for it.

I don't give two shits about moving pictures

There is no depth. You've already explained that.

Surrealism was a fad in the 1920's, but it's long been ultimately dispelled as a blip and failed experiment in art history. David Lynch is pretty much outdated

But he is an imagist, NOT a symbolist!

What does "depth" mean to you, then? Are there any "great" directors who didn't die before you were born, or do you need decades of critical & academic consensus before you'll dare to speak an opinion?

This post reeks of insecurity.

What's the difference?

Depth means challenging multiinterpretive thought beyond
"ear = gateway"

This is true for anything you might ever interested in. I could go on a rant, but that's just it. Communities for anything suck, there's like 1 in 20 people who actually put in the work or time, no matter what it actually is. And then you have another 20 on top, who just pretend to be part of the pretender community.

>he doesn't "get" shoegaze

embarrassing

>chinese food
Fuck you eating chink food in my fucking restaurant?

>he "gets" shoegaze

embarrassing

You are a young adult version of that sonic the hedgehog OC. I hope you realise this.

Well I'm not going to sit here and write a whole fucking book for you, but there have been many different interpretations for those images besides the ones I offered. Lynch is the real deal. His films dig deep into individual characters, the larger society around them, and the larger spiritual forces overriding those societies. His best films reveal new meanings every time you see them, "Inland Empire" in particular is one of the greatest films ever made.

Every artist uses imagery. Symbolism implies that there is a symbolic layer of meaning rather than that the imagery is just there as a reinforcement of the already existing meaning. Or something.

>complaining about teenagers
Only teenagers and old people do this. Everyone just accepts that teenagers are dumb.

Ah, so ambiguity = depth.
You are so intelligent, user.

If you're a teenager you aren't a Millenial.

>Inland Empire is one of the greatest films ever made
No. and "it made me feel uncomfortable" is not a reason why let alone intelligent.

Wow, dead ear = eavesdropping
So deep and challenging

David Lynch was originally a painter yet has no sense of composition. wtf

That's a lacklustre - not to mention mechanistic - interpretation. If you think something counts as decent symbolism simply because "it's images referencing something beyond the immediate narrative", you're creatively and intellectually bankrupt. Stop trying to pigeonhole concepts and techniques in film and media that were never meant to have strict definitions or parameters in the first place. This is why people hate film snobs. Their entire way of being consists of putting others down through implementing arbitrary definitions and watching as many "obscure" films as possible, while being sure to adhere to these in their lame opinion pieces and blog posts. You people are joyless, unintelligent and ultimately disgusting.

...

>watch
A monkey watches, a man thinks

...

I honestly think you would be happier on reddit, tumblr and/or letterboxd. Those are your safe spaces, believe me. No sarcasm intended.

>No. and "it made me feel uncomfortable" is not a reason why
Now I'm convinced you really are a pleb. I have to circle back to my earlier comment, that you won't recognize "greatness" unless critics & academics have already done decades of homework to make you feel secure in that opinion. Can you name one living filmmaker, one film made in the last decade, that belongs on the same list as ? Or are those guys automatically "better" because they're dead and you've read more essays about them?

>If you think something counts as decent symbolism simply because "it's images referencing something beyond the immediate narrative"
I don't. I was just giving my two cents about what the difference is.
I don't even claim I am correct.
> This is why people hate film snobs. Their entire way of being consists of putting others down through implementing arbitrary definitions and watching as many "obscure" films as possible, while being sure to adhere to these in their lame opinion pieces and blog posts.
Well, thank God I am not one.
>Stop trying to pigeonhole concepts and techniques in film and media that were never meant to have strict definitions or parameters in the first place.
Well, I guess the distinction is too deep, subtle, sublime and special to be understood by a subhuman pleb like me.
Sorry for disturbing your tranquility with my unworthy opinion, oh, Mighty One.

David Lynch = offensively shallow mediocrity

emotionalism is infantilism

Bad take. You're not intelligent. Stop trying so hard to be something you're not.

muh griffith

Those who are incapable of recognizing the genius of Griffith are genetically disinclined to greatness
Have any more superficial symbolism for us, lynchian?

What is there to explain? Eraserhead is a movie you need to relate to on an emotional level much more than on an intellectual one. Most of the narrative subtext about fatherhood, family life, sexual anxiety, industrialization and so on is pretty obvious and not really the point.

At the core is a feeling of anxiety that it conveys better than any other movie. It perfectly captures that desperate, crushing feeling when everything around you stadts to feel monstrous and oppressive and that's what makes it such an emotionally resonant movie for so many people.

If you already feel that way, there's no substantial point for the work to exist or be praised. Why do you need a series of moving pictures and guttural sounds to reinforce what you already feel?

>coffee

Explain why there are people that don't think Blue Velvet is Lynch's best.

Do you really see no inherent value to capturing certain emotions and feelings on film and conveying them to an audience at all?

dude dead ear = eavesdropping
dude criminal underbelly of peachy suburbia

>every closeup is ripping off some racist old director no one cares about

Um, try again sweetie!

It’s not that common with Eraserhead bro, most people haven’t seen it. Settle down. Lots of people getting into art cinema will start with something like Eraserhead, and it’s fucking good, so that’s why they rave about—pseuds or not.

Why would you want to feel that way? What is the point? There's no depth, no intellectual discourse. No such thing as an intelligent emotion.

DFW, back from the dead?

Griffith's genius and influence have already been recognized, interpreted, absorbed and memorialized by generations of filmmakers, film critics, academics, and audiences. Offering this opinion requires no original thought or interpretation on your part.

What's your personal connection with his work? Can you explain why it's significant in YOUR life without regurgitating published opinions from other people? Or do you even enjoy film on that level, at all?

Next time try reading. I understand it's more challenging for you, and you're not one that has an inclination towards mental challenge.

>silent movies
Don't even count as "films" desu

>being annoyed at a fanbase
>think something is worth discussing but instead of discussing it choose to bring up how the fanbase sucks
Can you stop focusing on people and start discussing the actual films already? What is the point of this aside from creating some stupid irony that you're unable to notice?

>It's a D.W Griffith samefags from beyond the grave episode
getting into the spooky october mood lads

mayhaps thou can can sucketh my cock?

A lot of people don't really have genuine opinions of films or art, or at least they don't trust their own reactions to sound "smart." They just react against other people's opinions. If they've seen a flock of obnoxious, pretentious people praising Lynch, then Lynch is obnoxious and pretentious. If they've seen a bunch of fraudulent critics trashing Batman v. Superman, then it's a great film. If they've sat through a film studies 101 course and learned that Griffith is great, that opinion must be EXTRA-true because they paid to learn it.

Same rules apply to politics, religion, and pretty much everything else

But that's what I said, there isn't that much to the movie intellectually. Sure, you can debate and come to your own conclusions about what the dancer in the radiator or the man in the planet are meant to represent and why exactly Henry's window is walled off and there may or may not be a definitive answer to all of that but I don't think knowing it would change much.

What makes it good is how well it succeeds at creatling an athmosphere and at creating its own world with its own mysterious logic to it. On a shoestring budget, no less. I think that just in terms of craftsmanship it's quite an accomplishment.

But it's not really a movie made to be analyzed like some of Lynch's later works are. It's just an abstract little piece about crushing anxiety.

>Griffith's genius and influence have already been recognized, interpreted, absorbed and memorialized
Oops!

>What's your personal connection with his work
He is an amalgamation of all classical notions of art and is the largest commentator on the falsehoods of modernism. Bely his works are the peak of man's probing for truth and the dissection between what makes humans human and what are humans.

Well, that is why it is not a "feels" movie. It's about isolating and bringing to the foreground of awareness a certain state of mind that is normally unconscious.

So it's the filmic equivalent of a fun house ride, an emotionally stimulating yet wholly unrewarding experience with a lukewarm aftertaste

>letterboxd
>failed meme Healey
You have aspergers and are using cynicism and snobbery to compensate.

You're looking for relation and "muh feels". Nothing more. If understanding and comprehension were primary goals, a documentary would b better suited, otherwise you're describing flaccid entertainment.

Sure, if you wanna put it that way. I just don't think we're seeing eye to eye on this. Some of my favourite movies are mood pieces. I don't think the worth of a film should be judged on it's narrative alone.

Film is a visual medium

Can you not see how something can be wholly rewarding exactly because it's emotionally stimulating? Why act as though that the latter somehow precludes the former?

Environment > mood
Environment is observation
mood is emotionalism

Then movie making is completely pointless because a documentary is better suited for everything?
How would a documentary explore what you are not aware of?

>still trying to argue with a pseudo intellectual shitposter
You are sure convincing him bro, this is actually a meaningful conversation with arguments on both sides. No snobbery or cynicism on his part at all.

says the face blind autist

>Can you not see how something can be wholly rewarding exactly because it's emotionally stimulating?
Don't do drugs kids.
Also, emotional manipulation is not stimulation. Lynch is actually more the former. And he fails as an artist thusly. More a craftsman. Should've made funhouse rides since that appears to be his inclination.

Just educate those people why Elephant Man, Inland Empire, Mullhuland Drive , Lost Highway or Fire Walk With Me are superior Lynch films.

>emotional manipulation
I don't think you know what this means.

Eraserhead is just discount Kafka.

>what you are not aware of
That is why you're not the one making the film. Pic-related is a good example of why observing reality is more stimulating and rewarding than fiction.
Anti-intellectuals needn't welcome

>serving reality is more stimulating and rewarding than fiction
I never disagreed with that. So?

I had seen a person you're describing praising this as the best thing ever only twice in my life and yet I come across people who feel like they're above everybody else for criticizing Lynch almost every time I meet new people and talk a bit about movies.

Adding a low frequency bass noise to make you feel uncomfortable and anxious is hardly subtle. It's the exact type of hamfisting and technical tomfoolery commonly exhibited by craftsmen as opposed to true artists such as pic-related