Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter J DeCrescenzo

FYI: Article on David Lynch in SF Chronicle

Recommended Posts

I have to say, Ive found Lynch's films to be some of the most disturbing and unnerving cinema I've ever seen...and this is from someone who is an averred anti art movie fan.

I mean, my idea of a good cinematic experience is a solid bit of Fincher, Scott ( either brother, but probably earlier Tony stuff), Bay, Sena, et al.

Yes, I know I'm a hopeless stylist, which makes my appreciation of Lynch's skewed, but flatly presented, take on the underbelly of the Midwest even more appealing. Given that it's generally framed by extreme ordinary-ness

Lynch, for all his oddities, DOES actually know what ordinary is, which is why he can present against it so well.

You can't present a comparison, unless you are very familiar with both sides.

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see David Lynch as being anti-ordinary. On the contrary he seems to be obsessed by it.

And what is ordinary? There is tension and strangeness everywhere if you look for it.

What's beyond that white picket fence?

At what point does a movie become an "art movie"?

Personally I don't think any film by David Lynch is any stranger or more of an "art movie" than "Lord of the Rings". "MatrixII" really had me trying to figure out what the hell was going on.

I'd really like some opinions of what makes an "art movie" besides thge obvious answer of a 30 minute long lockdown shot of an ashtray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi everyone again i dont want anyone to be put off Lynch films , not stiffle students from experimenting etc . just cant be arsed by the thing he makes movies that very few people go to see, so must be an artist . Still love "Elephant Man " john .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point does a movie become an "art movie"?

Personally I don't think any film by David Lynch is any stranger or more of an "art movie" than "Lord of the Rings". "MatrixII" really had me trying to figure out what the hell was going on.

 

I realize that this isn't a direct answer to your question, but wouldn't most if not all films fit, by definition, into the category of art? Here is Webster's definition:

 

Main Entry: 2art

Pronunciation: 'ärt

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>

2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP

3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>

4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art.

 

Here is Wikipedia's:

 

Art is that which is made with the primary intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind or spirit.

 

An artwork is assessed by means of the amount of stimulation it brings about. The impact it has on people, the amount of people that can relate, the degree of their appreciation, and the effect or influence it has or has had in the past, all accumulate to the 'degree of art'. Timeless masterpieces in art all possess these aspects to a great extent.

 

Something is not considered 'art' when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so.

 

 

Some of Lynch's works, IMO, can be classified as mainstream - for instance, Mulholland Drive. Films like Eraserhead and Inland Empire, IMO, would not. Consequently, a more appropriate category for the latter two would be "indies". The term "art", by its definition, really has little or nothing to do with it.

Edited by Ken Cangi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"he makes movies that very few people go to see, so must be an artist."

These things are relative. Of course more people go to see "Harry Potter" films but I don't believe David Lynch is all that obscure.

Remember that a lot of money gets made in DVD sales and rentals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes money or not has nothing to do with it as far as i am concerned [Walked out of 1st Potter Film] , its just the myth thing that seems to around Lynch ,thats all and i dont like his movies ,sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


  • New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Visual Products



    Paralinx LLC



    FJS International



    Rig Wheels Passport



    G-Force Grips



    Wooden Camera



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Tai Audio



    Abel Cine



    Glidecam



    CineLab



    Just Cinema Gear



    Serious Gear



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Metropolis Post



    Ritter Battery


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...