Post yfw after you watched Inland Empire and/or Mulholland Drive
>David Lynch thread
>mfw that creepy old couple starts chasing Naomi
>>63318757
>that wasn't nearly as good as lost highway
I heard you fuck ducks.
>the diner scene
>>63318955
>>63318955
Doesn't matter how often I've seen that scene, every fucking time it scares me to hell.
>>63318757
freaked me the fuck out, couldn't sleep, then I went back and forth between these feever like dreams and awoke next morning tired as shit.
This surreal shit isn't for me. If this is what's considered "patrician" I'd rather stay pleb.
>>63318955
>>63319172
what was the meaning fo this scene? To be left unexplained and scar the audience?
>>63319286
I think it was just showing what Naomi's character ended up becoming. And for scares, too. I'm probably wrong about the meaning, though. Anyone else know?
>>63318990
This is a blue board
>>63319379
Y-you're a blue board!
"oh wow another meaningless movie for people who pretend to like complex cinema"
>>63319415
>I didn't understand what I just watched, therefore it has no meaning
what the fuck was the office murder about?
Also cowboy guy best character ever
Never watched anything Lynchian before. Should I start with Eraserhead?
>>63318955
the masketta man
>>63319451
Then explain
>>63319463
Yes, either that, or Mulholland Drive.
>>63319415
Pleb detected
>>63319509
What's so good about Mulholland drive except for the lesbian scene?
There's not much worse than David Lynch let off his leash. He's fucking brilliant when his ideas are more focused.
I'm taking a Philosophy of Film course this semester and Lost Highway was the Lynch film she chose for the syllabus. Great fucking movie, but I wish she had chosen Mulholland Drive, because I really want to know from an academic or critical perspective why it's considered one of the greatest films of all time.
I absolutely love David Lynch, and have enjoyed all of his movies, but people always revert to cop-out words like "surreal" and "atmospheric" when they're talking about them and everyone just solemnly nods their heads in agreement at how good they are.
>>63319641
The thing I've noticed about Lynch's films are that a lot of why it's good is hard to put into words, at least for me. But I agree, I think more people need to know from an academic standpoint why MD is a great film. I'm ignorant on the topic myself.
>>63319641
What's wrong with describing a film as "atmospheric"?
>>63319713
Nothing, but it's one of the only words people use when they're trying to make meaningful commentary about his films and it gets old. Not that I have anything better, though.
Maybe we all just need to just acknowledge that if basically everyone agrees his movies are great, then they're great, and we can stop trying to make any sense of them.
>>63318757
I walked out on Inland Empire a few years ago. It was painful to hear that my two friends absolutely loved it. Inland Empire was way too forced. Mulholland Drive was much better.
I think people overanalyze Lynch's stuff. Most of it is weird for weirdness sake. "What do those colors mean? Was that guy some childhood memory?" Blah, really?
>>63319699
Nobody can explain why MD is on of the greatest films of all times.
They destroy the movie, piece to piece, they explain every fucking frame, they talk about the tons of elements you didn't notice during the movie and stop. They cant put it into a bigger explanation.
In my Philosophy course they destroyed this film as a puzzle but didn't show to us the end of the puzzle, the completation of the whole.
>>63319835
>forced
Literally the last word I would ever think of to describe that movie. Disjointed, nonsensical, dream-like, whatever... but forced?
>>63319841
That sounds really interesting. I'd love to take a course like that, but I'm unsure if they have it at my university. Do you enjoy the class?
>>63319881
Yeah, in every scene I just heard Lynch inside my head going "let's like make her run through here and then she is somewhere else! BOOM! The audience will never expect that! And then BOOM some funny looking fellow! And now they are somewhere completely different! I'm genious!"
>>63320018
check out this turbopleb
>>63319921
Nope.
I love Lynch, but I dont like MD. I loved Rabbits, I loved Eraserhead, The elephant man, DUne, BLue Velvet and so on but MD is his worst work to me. All these shitheads who call you "pleb" and say "you didnt understansd the movie" cant really understand it by themselves. They just have to pretend to be true cinema lovers.
>>63320096
>pretending to like DUne and Rabbits
This is how we all know you're an actual cold-blooded plebeian. There's no further explanation required.
>>63320224
I actually love Dune and Rabbits.
>>63320043
Here is your reply.
>>63320096
Eraserhead is great. I also saw Dune from the big screen (same theatre were I left Inland Empire; it was Lynch movie week) and even though I like the books I liked the movie. Practical effect worms held up pretty good and Sting was great. The navigators were 110%.
>>63318757
>inland empire
Considering the fact that he hasn't put out a movie since 2006 I'm really curious what the new season of Twin Peaks is going to be like. The fact that he's directing every episode means he's making a huge addition to his body of work, and I wonder how it's going to be received.
>>63320386
>WHAT HAPPENED TO JOSIE, COOP?
>>63320018
it's "genius" you fucking moron
>>63320096
But Mulholland Dr ISN'T that hard to understand, especially compared to some of his other work. I don't see any flaws with it. Your issue seems to be the fans of the film, not the film itself.
>>63320348
i started watching inland empire and it looked like complete garbage so i stopped watching. the cinematography was non existent. does it actually git good?
>>63320612
And still cant explain it to me
>tfw i enjoy Spike Lee more, minus Eraserhead/Blue Velvet/Twin peeks
>>63318757
>have inland empire playing in windowed mode in upper right part of screen
>one minute in i already realize the movie is going to be a turd but have a shred of hope left since retards on /tv/ recommended it
>spend more time doing something in the background than paying attention to the movie because it's such shit
>2 hours in just set the play speed to 5x, turn sound off, and read the subtitles
needless to say, the last hour of the movie was significantly more "enjoyable" than the previous too.
>>63320778
Dubs dubs dubs, yet a simple trips?
>>63320224
>pretending
I saw Dune when I was 6 and I still love it to this day, thirty years later.
>>63320749
What do you even need explaining? Are you really that clueless? Be specific next time, kid.
>>63318955
Meh...
>>63318955
>>63321128
What's going on here?
>>63321490
>it is not my custom to go where i am not wanted
HAhaHAhaHAha
>>63319641
>>63319699
>>63319841
Mulholland Drive, from what I can tell, is about "waking up"; realizing what you thought was real was actually fake.
You can see this in individual scenes and moments, like Betty rehearsing with Rita for her audition, the brunette singing for that one part in Adam Kesher's movie, and Club Silencio.
This also applies to the movie itself. The last part reveals that the first two hours or so were actually Betty's dream. You can see this when you consider the shot of the pillow before the opening credits, the cheesy acting for most of the movie, "Hey pretty girl, time to wake up", and so on.
>>63321539
Now give me back my phone.
I enjoyed Inland Empire quite a lot. It starts out weird but once you get into that digital crappy quality it gets good.
>>63318955
>>63321128
>>63321490
>>63321539
>>63321811
What was his problem?
>>63319463
I think Blue Velvets the most straightforward.
>mfw Lost Highway
>>63319810
Lynch films are more about the feeling you get from watching them. You can't really break them down in the typical way as most films; they're just not built that way.
And just raw feelings and emotion is art in its purest form.
>>63321913
he was no real person
>Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino, who was also in attendance, confessed in a 1992 interview, "After I saw Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me at Cannes, David Lynch had disappeared so far up his own ass that I have no desire to see another David Lynch movie until I hear something different. And you know, I loved him. I loved him."[15]
What did he mean by this?
>>63322104
He knew what he was talking about.
He didn't go to film school, he went to films, after all.
>>63322104
It means FWWM is hot trash.
>>63321959
The Straight Storhy is the most straightforward, but I see your point. Still, beautiful movie.
>>63319570
...a George Lucas unleashed?
mfw Eraserhead
How do i get his hair
Any effay crossposters want to help?
>>63322539
Hair dryer. Wax. Slightly damp hair?
>>63322539
I would say have fine hair (not thin), experiment with mousse, pomades and waxes while blowdrying with your hand "bending" the hair in few directions to get this DUDE LMAO look
>>63319641
MD is just a watered down, Oscar bait version of Lost Highway.
i thought rabbits was gonna be some shitty boring pretentious garbage but it was actually one of the most discomforting and surreal things i've ever watched. i thoroughly loved it.
thoughts on rabbits?
>>63321977
Don't watch any actual surreal films then
I love Eraserhead, Rabbits, and Twin Peaks.
I haven't seen any other Lynch.
What should I watch?
>>63324005
Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, Inland Empire and Lost Highway.
>>63319463
>Start watching Lynch films with Eraserhead?
Nah. Not unless you are already into German Expressionism.
"Wild at Heart" is a good jumping off point.
>>63319286
>>63319332
on youtube etc
>>63324005
Wild at Heart and Blue Velvet
The end of Mulholland Drive was one of the scariest things I'd ever seen when I first watched it. Those fucking old people
>>63319551
The composition, the cinematography, the score, the acting, the music, the atmosphere, the sets, the themes. Pretty much everything.
>mfw this thread is full of stupid shits
>>63322104
>"I didn't go to film school, I went to films"
>Goes to a film
P O E T R Y
O
E
T
R
Y
>>63320749
MD is one of the easiest of Lynch's movies to understand, but only if you know where it's coming from emotionally. I immediately sympathized with Betty's unrequited romance, her failure of a life. The films is the inverse of Sunset Blvd, which was about an actress who had it all, and lost it, and went crazy. MD is like a lament for all the bright-eyed starlets who never make it at all, go crazy, and become monsters of their former selves. It happens all the time, the depraved hobo route or the suicide route, which MD captures in an abstract, simultaneous way. All of its themes relate to this dismal reality, and anything else is a projection of Betty on dream-selves of the people who (in her POV) wronged her. It's not hard to grasp.
>>63323846
Rabbits is one of my favorite things he's done. I've written an analysis of it and IE, focusing mostly on the Rabbits. Anyone interested?
>>63324675
Go on
I got the best blowjob ever during Mulholland Drive. We paused right after the first lesbo scene because we were both too horny. Thanks, David Lynch.I miss her.
>>63322104
He means he's a pleb because he didn't understand how great FWWM was
>>63324754
There's a backroom we never fully see. The standard-def camera makes it hard to make out the features of the Rabbit's faces. There's a light-source, shadows in odd tripoint overlaps, that shouldn't exist anywhere but behind a camera which the Rabbits acknowledge when singing but ignore otherwise. An audience laughs which we don't see. There's a sense the rabbits can walk off set; the walls form right edges within the frame.There's a window which may or may not be boarded up, leading somewhere undetermined. Not only do we not know how confined this area is, we don't the rules. Can only the male leave? Is this a sitcom, an opera, a drama? Genre, space, frame, everything is unclear.
The dialogue gives a sense that coherent exchanges have been re-organized and randomized. Replies are given to dialogue many lines ago. Similar to the asynchronous time in the Black Lodge of Twin Peaks, but applied not to space but the nervous system itself. A lot of people interpret this temporal skew as purgatory - inbetween heaven and hell's coherence. The last line 'what will I be?' seems to indicate this strongly. Not to mention the odd moment where a seance or exorcism seems to be held for some inhabiting spirit or demon.
This arrested plane idea is upheld by the appearance of the Rabbits in Inland Empire. They reside at the center of the film's surreal, metaphysical maze of recursive & reflective realities - fictive ones, films trapped inside plays on vinyl, shown on TV.
Rabbits morph into key figures of the film, but never the same ones, as if slipping through from a center. At the climax when their door opens , a complete shift in the revealed status quo occurs. All evidence points to the Rabbits as the foundation, the first version of the cursed narrative which finds itself repeating. Because once freed, the malevolence that acts as environmental antagonist of the film disappears. Why Rabbits? Perhaps animal forms point to the story's origin as Fairy Tale.
[1/2]
>>63320973
>36 years old
>>63325116
[2/1]
'What will I be?' in context of the series seems to indicate a reincarnation angle - but important is the fact the Rabbits are never shown to leave in the series, to reincarnate. One gets the sense that they never will, and that their huddle together for consolation betrays their awareness and lack of hope. A nice hopeful idea to cope with the underlying pure knowing of an eternal trap. We could even read their atemporality as degradation over time, a sort of entropy, like VHS wear or vinyl pops. The sense is that they've been here and will always be here. Whenever the viewer watches Rabbits, they're engaging alongside them in their suspension in un-time. This is what the mood, in my opinion, is trying to evoke: being trapped.
In the context of IE, 'who will I be?' seems to indicate the next layer of reality that sucks Laura Dern in - she has become one of the Rabbits. Who, by the way, are played by Naomi Watts and Laura Elena Harring, who were part of a tragic love triangle in Mulholland Drive as well. Harring even shows up at the end, potentially as a freed Rabbit back in human form. And Inland Empire is about a tragic love triangle - as is every version of the cursed story.
We mustn't forget their domesticity. A bleak outlook, maybe, on the spiritual state of the modern American. A surreal version of the kind of hellish unloving family life in Lynch's cartoon Dumbland. The Rabbits seem analogous to those trapped in work-life (suit, leaving), in home-life (ironing, staying), trapped in the bounds of love between two unrealized people and a third that promises something better - and suffering in this locked mode.
But the rabbits, being the underbelly of the infidelity that fuels IE, are more ambiguous figures than a mere representation of cheating or millennial-era alienation. They stand for the infidelity Nikki falls victim to that the play centers around, but they represent a general, metaphysical malaise.
Is the Inland Empire end credits sequence the most fun point of Lynch's career? It certainly made my face light up.
>>63324600
The film is easy to understand on the surface. Despite many disparate elements composing the whole it all comes together nicely and in a coherent manner. However there are far too many sinisterly disjointed elements building up the film to just ignore them and enjoy it for the emotions as you said, and that's exactly why it's a film that demands many viewings. And while you can just understand and enjoy it for what it offers superficially - similar to listening to a floorfiller song for instant enjoyment without really put in the effort to understand the harmonies and the structure and how the rythms patterns work - but saying that Mulholland Drive is easy for the simplicity of the story is, at the very least, being willingly ignorant towards the moviegoing audience in general. A less enthusiastic cinephile used to the conventions of pop mainstrean cinema will already find struggle understanding the film past the opening credits.
>>63325434
I agree actually. It's easy to understand the overall flow of the film, but yes, there are a lot of nuances that don't fit into the unrequited romance or dream reveal easily. This is why it's so good for rewatches. I think once you come to understand how to approach the film, you're not left with a starting point instead of an endpoint. It's almost like dream analysis, figuring out what part of the first half correlates to the seeming reality of the post-dream reveal. And even then, it's not like there's a hard-edged dream and reality happening. I always take it for granted how 'easy' to grasp MD is, but it's only due to multiple viewings - every time I show it to someone I'm taken aback by how confused they were by it, as if it was much weirder than I thought it was. Which, I guess it really is.
>>63325238
Getting old is a hell of a thing, man.
did anyone else think rabbits was funny
>>63319332
something along the lines of the creature being a direct representation of fear of the unknown
