I don't it why people have high praise for this. Am I stupid? I can tell it was expertly crafted and was trying to do...

I don't it why people have high praise for this. Am I stupid? I can tell it was expertly crafted and was trying to do...something...but in the end i was just confused as to what the point was.

You were watching it wrong

Looking for point in Lynch films is a waste of time. Just enjoy or be repulsed by the experience.

>I don't it why people
> Am I stupid?

Yes

so the fact that i did not enjoy this movie at all is why it's "good"

No

David Lynch figured out that if you're competent at what you're doing, make things vague and able to interpreted different ways, and act really serious about it and yourself, then people will take you seriously. The greatest creation of David Lynch is David Lynch.

Of course there is a point, but its obscured by random nonsense like the cowboy and spooky homeless dude. It's really not that complicated to understand once you realize most of the movie is a fantasy.

It just means you didn't enjoy it, don't feel pressured to explain your opinion just because it's not the mainstream one my fren

ahh, so it's a piece of garbage like I thought. got it.

It's not even all that random. The cowboy is part of the whole shady-financing "conspiracy," which is definitely a thing in Hollywood. The homeless person is the nightmare of failing your dream and ending up poor on skid row

If you didn't get it or enjoy it that's cool, but you don't have to be such a faggot about it. Why are plebs like this?

whats the blue box about?
I don't have a problem with imagery, but when you devote so much of the movie to the cowboy or an entire scene to the hag and then smash it all together in the most obfuscating way possible, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the "story/plot" of this story from any other poorly written movie. Yet, high praise from everyone it seems. I don't get it. I'm trying to understand what exactly is note worthy about it aside from how thoughtful any given shot or scene is. The way it comes together is a huge mess

>it's shit because I didn't like it

Because the plot is absolutely secondary in this movie. Lynch is much more concerned with evoking a certain atmosphere or conveying a feeling than he is with constructing a coherent narrative. That's really all you need to know to "get" his movies. They're meant to be experienced rather than understood. Think of it like a piece of music.

this
the key to this film is naomi watts' titties
rewatch it and this time focus on them

>I don't it why people have high praise for this. Am I stupid?

the notion that in order to "understand" the movie you had to throw out any semblance of logic and just turn your brain off is shit.

that's something I can understand I suppose. I just don't really know how you separate the plot from any given movie. That's pretty essential to movies as a medium.

#
>the notion that in order to "understand" the movie you had to throw out any semblance of logic and just turn your brain off is shit
You don't need to understand it at all.
>I just don't really know how you separate the plot from any given movie. That's pretty essential to movies as a medium.
I have to disagree desu. What sets apart film from literature is the visual element, and to utilise the visual element to its full extent and artist should strive to convey that which can't be expressed in words. Of course that doesn't mean movies shouldn't have plots, but it also doesn't mean they absolutely have to have them. Tarkovsky describes this better than I ever could and his films pretty epitomise this idea.
>I find poetic links, the logic of poetry in cinema, extraordinarily pleasing. They seem to me perfectly appropriate to the potential of cinema as the most truthful and poetic of art forms. Certainly I am more at home with them than with traditional theatrical writing which links images through the linear rigid logical development of plot. That sort of fussily correct way of linking events usually involves arbitrarily forcing them into sequence in obedience to some abstract notion of order. And even when this is not so, even when the plot is governed by the characters, one finds that the links which hold it together rest on a facile interpretation of life's complexities.
>A literary work can only be received through symbols, through concepts — for that is what words are; but cinema, like music, allows for utterly direct, emotional, sensuous perception of the work.

He has an obvious bias towards film as a medium, but I think his points are still very valid.

you're not alone OP.

i watched the first 20 minutes and was immensely disappointed, skimmed through the rest of the movie quickly and never went back to it. i like lynch as a person and he seems like a really cool guy, but i don't like anything he creates when it comes to music, tv shows or movies. even twin peaks didn't do it for me.

>watched the first 20 minutes and was immensely disappointed, skimmed through the rest of the movie quickly and never went back to it.

>Am I stupid?
Yes. I love that you threw that up as some hyperbolically rhetorical question, the answer of which couldnt possible be affirmative, but yea. You are.

fair enough. I guess it's just not for me. It still feels like much of the movie was meant to distract me or throw me off the trail, but I guess that necessitates a plot. So maybe that doesnt make sense

I love that you jump to conclusions as if I couldn't really be asking a genuine question

I wouldn't do that. I think it's certainly worth watching just to see it with your eyes. I'm just not down for what it is as a whole.

bumping the only decent thread on this board.