David Lynch interview in Wired News

[Troy Warr]

I'm going to see David Lynch tomorrow (Thursday 2/25) - he's appearing in town at a bookstore to discuss his new book on meditation. I'd guess that he'll focus on different subjects than his films, but I'm sure they'll come up in the Q&A - maybe I'll glean some new info to share here.

 

Or, maybe I'll just try grill him for not finding a way to release Lost Highway on widescreen DVD by now! :P

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

The trailer for "Inland Empire" played on the big screen the other day. I was surprised at how the images really weren't that pixelated. Still, obviously video with a very "pre-filmschool" look to it, but it looks like more wacky fun from Lynch.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Film and video formats are languages. David Lynch is multilingual.

 

Steve

 

 

A more true statement could not be made. Different emulsions are just accents to the same language...film.

 

Lynch is Lynch, like earth is earth, like fire is fire. I don't really look at it as "growing" for him, though. It's like an oil painter finding a new binder for his formula. Play with it and see what happens. He played and he likes.

 

-Jonnie

[Nate Downes]

I doubt that was the sole reason, just one of them.

 

Besides, had Lynch shot "Inland Empire" on Super-8, Alessandro, you'd be championing him for his bold thinking and creative audacity rather than suggesting he was irresponsible not to use higher technology. ;)

 

He's got you there....

 

And I do understand what Lynch is trying to say, but I do feel that he could have been less condescending... but if he weren't then it just wouldn't have been Lynch, would it?

 

I actually applaud him for his choice of camera. I've always been a guy to strongly support shooting with the right equipment to give the look you want, and if the PD150 gave him that look, bravo. I personally do not like the PD150's look for my own work, and that's my perogative. So, stick to what you know, and the rest will sort itself out, I always say.

 

But then again, I have the closet of oddball cameras here, and I use them.

[Jason Debus]

Or, maybe I'll just try grill him for not finding a way to release Lost Highway on widescreen DVD by now! :P

I asked him about this probably about a year ago and he said that he finished supervising the telecine session and it's now in the hands of the distributor. He has no say as far as when it is released. This was during the time he was supervising the telecine for the Wild at Heart re-release which is already out so it is kind of curious that we haven't seen a Lost Highway re-release.

[Greg Gross]

Have you ever seen any commercials(local tv) shot on PD-150,PD-170? If you have'nt you

may be in for a surprise if you come across one. Granted its still a toy compared to what

most dp's shoot here with in the digital format. If all you had was a PD-150 could you still

shoot an independent film? Is it really the camera,the lens that makes all that much of a

difference? Have you ever really pushed the envelope with the basics due to lack of cash

for the frills? I think you're looking at a cinematographer who has vision,creativity,cinema

skills practically unequaled. Obviously by using the PD-150 he has developed the look that

he wanted to achieve. Would it make you feel better if you found out that he used a Cine

Alta or digital cinema camera like the Genesis? In the last three years I've had to make

radical changes to my photography business to compensate for digital photography. Film is

almost dead in my studio except for a few clients and my own personal fine art work. My

clients actually walk in the studio now and ask for digital photography or they call and ask

for it. They always want to know if I can do the the work as soon as possible,can I show them

proofs in a matter of minutes. It was necessary for me to upgrade the business as it finances

my filmmaking. I can only afford to shoot with a PD-170 which I own or rent a camera. I some-

times borrow my mentor's 16mm camera. Using the PD-170 has taught me to be more creative.

Sure I rent a DX100A at times and I only have to go down the street to rent one. For the DV fea-

fures I've done the production company out of Baltimore provided two DX100A's. Would I like to

own and shoot a high-end HD-Cam? You bet your sweet ass I would. The budget is too tight to

rent or own one right now. So I shoot in 4:3 and then go to post. Of course above all else I would

love to shoot in 16mm super for the rest of my life and forget about video and monitors and such.

I remember an independent film,I think about three years ago and it was "Open Water". Two lovers

go on a scuba vacation and manage to get left behind on the ocean by the dive boat. Eventually they

are both eaten by the sharks. I think the girl committed suicide by drowning herself versus being

eaten by the sharks alive. I actually viewed this film three days in a row. Friday,saturday,sunday and

I took notes and interviewed movie goers. This was for a cinema project I was working on. I only had

to see the film once to know that they needed to call David Mullen ASC and reshoot the film, as in doing

it the right way. After seeing the film three different days I was impressed with the movie goers as they

got scared and reacted throughout the film,screaming,on the edge of their seats,high anxiety. Could it

be that "Hitch" actually directed this film,was the script good? Could it be that it was a good story? The

viewers did not care about the camera or the lens. We care about the lens and the camera,rightfully so,

we should care. I believe this production was shot with PD-150's,I cannot remember. Please correct me

If I'm wrong. I saw so many mistakes as I viewed it. I did like the use of practicals in some of the scenes,

which I believe were at an outdoor cafe. I remember thinking about how I would light it differently. The

key light was good on the talent(blonde girl) but I think I would have been more creative. Movier goers

told me during interviews that it looked just like any other film to them. Was it the camera,format,lens?

I'm ashamed of myself because I'm thinking right now,sweet jesus would I love to be shooting with a

high end HD-Cam,Cooke T 1.7(f 1.4) S4 HD 8-46mm(8x5.75)Zoom. Is it the camera,the lens? Is it the

creative choices we make with these tools,our art,craft? When I watch "North Fork" I think about David

Mullen's art and his craft, what was he thinking about when he lit the scene with Nick Nolte,the scene

with the small practical. David is so humble and tirelessly shares his art and craft with this forum as many

before him he is a cinematographer. In the book "The Declaration of Independent Filmmaking" it is said

of David- "We are walking to our first set up. Michele Hicks walks beside our cinematographer. David

Mullen leads the pack. We have been on the set for one hour. We turn in to a dim hallway. It feels like

we are about to enter an arena;all the focus is about to fall on us. David gently says,"You know,this

movie is riding on three unknowns"- meaning the three of us beside him. We knew David was a visualist,

but he wants us to know that he is also a realist". As a cinematographer have you thought about being a

visualist,a realist? I have an assistant who is in her first year of college and she helps me with my film-

making projects. She treats and handles the PD-170 like its an Arri D-20. Holds off on her bathroom

breaks,lunch and I always have to tell her to take a break. She never complains about the process of

making a film and of course we all know filmmaking is fun. Is'nt it? She reminds me about my blood

sugar, did I take my altace? Did I take my Plavix? She wants to be a filmmaker. I had a slight tear the

other day(fall down one cheek) as I watched her place the PD-170 into its soft case. You would of thought

it was a Panavision camera. I'm sensitive to light,mood,facial expressions,body language. Is it all about

what equipment we use? The camera,the lens? Nykvist would probably say-"Keep it simple Greg". I'm

getting ashamed of myself again. I'm thinking about that HD-Cam again with the Cooke HD lens. Quote:

"Perhaps it sounds ridiculous,but the best thing that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera

and some film and make a movie of any kind".- Stanley Kubrick

 

Greg Gross

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

Can I get a ¶

 

:D

[steve hyde]

Sometimes having limitations can promote artistic freedom.

 

Constraints are a gift and necessity inspires innovation. If you commit to working with a PD150, the artist is faced with a focused question: what can be said with this camera?....and also....what cannot be said with this camera? Once the project is bound by answers to these questions the artist is free to explore the focused domain of what can be said. I agree, it is a kind of freedom, a freedom from worrying about all the other camera options that might better fit a particular shooting situation. As an alternative to running to the rental house for a technical fix, Lynch has to use his imagination and language of the PD150 to say what he needs to say. Lynch is an innovator.

 

Steve

[Matt Pacini]

All these statements are ignoring what I think is the real reason behind Lynch shooting on formats other than 35mm film:

Nobody is going to give him much (or perhaps any) money anymore, because the vast majority of his films have lost tons of money. So he has to shoot on a shoesstring, just like many of us. And someone in his position simply isn't going to say "I can't get any money, so I have to shoot on this crappy format just to get something done". He's going to say it's an artistic choice. If I'm wrong, then why wasn't he shooting all his earlier stuff on 16mm or even Super 8?

Because he could get money. Simple as that.

 

Sorry, I like the guy, even his bad stuff is interesting to me.

But if you're a studio, investor or distributor, that doesn't make you get a warm fuzzy feeling all over like it does to us film fans.

 

Even Mullholland Drive lost loads of cash.

Worldwide gross revenue was $20 million. I guarantee you that was the nail in his coffin, as far as being able to raise money, because that film got more PR than anyone could hope for.

 

MP

[Jason Debus]

For all Lynch's talk about DV and how wonderful it is, I get the feeling that artistic ownership is also an issue in his decision. I think except for Eraserhead, he doesn't have 'ownership' of any of his feature work and receives very little money from residuals. With Inland Empire he's back to where he started with Eraserhead, getting most of the money rather than peanuts.

 

Of course all of this is conjecture on my part, but I think it is valid even if Lynch doesn't admit it.

 

EDIT: Since when is 20 million theatrical losing money? You are forgetting pay TV, DVD sales, etc, Mulholland Drive made money.

[steve hyde]

Matt,

 

It's a good point. He is also part of a movement to reclaim "independent" filmmaking. For me that is reason alone to buy a copy of his film directly from him.

 

Steve

[Michael Most]

Even Mullholland Drive lost loads of cash.

Worldwide gross revenue was $20 million. I guarantee you that was the nail in his coffin, as far as being able to raise money, because that film got more PR than anyone could hope for.

 

That's not only untrue, it's a bad example. Mulholland Drive was made as a television pilot for, I believe, ABC, and the production costs were largely covered by the network. Repurposing the footage for a feature release, and shooting minimal augmentation footage, was not particularly costly. $20 million was probably at least $15 million more than it cost to make. Granted, there were prints and advertising costs, but the combination of the theatrical release and cable/DVD likely more than made up for that. I'm not saying the picture made big money - or made money at all - but it certainly was not the financial bath you're making it out to be.

[Troy Warr]

That's not only untrue, it's a bad example. Mulholland Drive was made as a television pilot for, I believe, ABC, and the production costs were largely covered by the network. Repurposing the footage for a feature release, and shooting minimal augmentation footage, was not particularly costly. $20 million was probably at least $15 million more than it cost to make. Granted, there were prints and advertising costs, but the combination of the theatrical release and cable/DVD likely more than made up for that. I'm not saying the picture made big money - or made money at all - but it certainly was not the financial bath you're making it out to be.

 

I think that Matt may have a point, though on the other hand, I think it's impossible to speculate about the studios' thought processes based on limited financial data. I would tend to think that Lynch could easily either get financing, or self-finance a higher-end shooting medium than miniDV if he wanted to.

 

According to IMDB, Mulholland Dr. cost $15 million to make, so I think $20 gross global totals probably means that it, if it even broke into the black, it at least wasn't as profitable as a more commercial venture from a more commercial director could have been. Looking back through his other features, it doesn't look like his films have made a substantial return on investment since Elephant Man and Eraserhead.

 

Something tells me that the Dune experience probably soured both Lynch and the studios on his prospects as a big-budget director (at least in the American system). Granted, I would still consider $15 million in the big leagues, but I think that his name and reputation could probably convince a European studio like StudioCanal to continue to invest in him for his current projects.

[Alessandro Machi]

A more true statement could not be made. Different emulsions are just accents to the same language...film.

 

Lynch is Lynch, like earth is earth, like fire is fire. I don't really look at it as "growing" for him, though. It's like an oil painter finding a new binder for his formula. Play with it and see what happens. He played and he likes.

 

-Jonnie

 

Which is exactly my point, no need to bash his roots just because he's now happy holding a small digital camera in the palm of his hand.

[Michael Most]

According to IMDB, Mulholland Dr. cost $15 million to make

 

I wouldn't exactly consider IMDB a particularly reliable source of information for something like a motion picture's budget. At least two pictures that I worked on - and know the actual budget figures - are listed on IMDB with budget totals that are at least $10-15 million off the actual numbers. And these were not "big budget" pictures.

 

Unless they're including the cost of prints and advertising, there is no way that I can see that Mulholland Drive could have had a negative cost of $15 million.

[Dan Goulder]

Unless they're including the cost of prints and advertising, there is no way that I can see that Mulholland Drive could have had a negative cost of $15 million.

Really? How much do you think the actual negative cost was on this movie? (Granted, Naomi Watts probably went for a lot less back then, but this was still a decent-sized L.A. union production.)

[Alex Lindblom]

OK

 

I finally saw the film on the big screen -- almost. To my horror it turned out to be a digital screening. I never in my whole life sen such a bad presentation. Just to compare, when I came home I took a look at Miami Vice on my CRT and oh my god how much better it looked, and we all know how that one looked in the theater.

 

Now back to IE, when I finally came to grips with the projection and DV look, my biggest surprise was that you get used to the technically aspect of it, but what did not work here was the actual cinematography, the compositions.

 

I mean there are a lot of extreme close up on faces in this movie many with very wide lenses, and the composition almost always with the face in dead center of the frame, with a little bit of hand held shake, and when the film is 3 hours it can get quiet unnerving.

 

As I said before I love Lynch and his work, but the visuals are so different in this film ( once again composition not tech aspect of it ) that you are sometimes doubting yourself -- can this be the same person that gave us masterpieces like Mulholland Dr.

 

On a final note on the visual when I went to the WC after the screening one of the other spectators says to me "I can not believe how bad that digital looked", remember this was just an average Joe.

 

The actual film itself...

 

Its not such a mind fu** as I heard from other viewers, I fells like quiet a straight story just told in an nonlinear fashion. There are of course certain thing that make no sense but this is lynch after all.

 

The movie was absolutely worth seeing even though its probably one of his weaker works, but you cant always be on top. Laura Dern is great and so is, as always Harry Dean Stanton, and for a 3h movie it goes past very fast.

 

All and all it was fun to see Lynch back at work and I am very eager to see what comes next.