>cringy dialogue
>objectively bad performances
I love how weird this guy's movies are but his inability to write dialogue or create a good performance hinders his films from being masterpieces.
Please tell me why I'm wrong, I'm genuinely curious how people can think otherwise about the dialogue and certain performances.
neo/tv/ is the pits
You have 30 seconds to be funny. GO!
The dialogue and performances aren't mean to be naturalistic.
>>67278998
>>67279032
Are you going to deny the campy-ness of a lot of the performances in his movies?
>>67279046
So it's intentional then. For what purpose? To match the atmosphere of the film?
I have nothing against "heightened and campy acting", I love The Shining and Possession. But that type of acting made sense in those films.
Is it just a stylistic decision on Lynch's part? Because a lot of the actors in his movies are capable of giving naturalistic performances so it can't be that they're "bad"
>>67279046
>>67279097
unnaturalistic =/= bad
The acting in twin peaks is so strange but i love it
He writes amazing dialogue. Usually short, slightly ambiguous lines that allow the viewer to take the story in multiple different directions depending on how they interpret them.
Got any examples of this "cringy" dialogue?
>>67279095
I think a lot of the performances are unsettling, constantly alluding to the fact that you're not in our world, but rather Lynch's world, where everything's a bit off and you're more uncomfortable than normal
>>67278963
He's the embodiment of "lol so randum XD"
>>67279968
He's really not.
Are you retarded? Naomi Watts' performance in Mulholland Dr. was GOAT.
>>67279095
>For what purpose? To match the atmosphere of the film?
yep
>>67278963
Dialogue and acting are often intended to be dream-like. Tiny things that are a bit off and make you feel uncomfortable. I'm pretty sure it's often suppose to provoke laughter, but a 'this is weird and kind of creepy' kind of laughter.
There are some bad actors in his stuff though, but I think it's the actors not understanding what Lynch wants from them more than anything else.
>Implying Lynch's films are supposed to be realistic
>>67280145
In Mulholland Dr. it proves that the acting is intentional, because in the second half of the film her acting is much more natural than it original was, as was everybody's. Lynch knows what he's doing.
>>67280324
Exactly this. I was confused as to why she was acting so poorly for the first half of the movie, but it absolutely makes sense when you come to understand what the movie is about.
>>67278963
you're right. no contemporary director comes close in terms of weird maya deren-esque dream logic stories, which i think explains a lot of his dialogue, but the perfomances (especially actresses - except rosselini of course) are bad.
he's got mid-level tarantinoism in his writing
>>67280264
>it's the actors not understanding what Lynch wants from them more than anything else
I was always under the impression that he did that intentionally.
