>Michael, how can you "enjoy" it if you didn't "GET" it?  Lynch is NOT
>high-minded.  Lynch is NOT a magician.  Lynch is the biggest
>one-note-rip-off ever given a blank check.  You were TAKEN, Michael!  Wake
>up!


Thank you Lama!!!!!  As im on digest, i hope i'm not retreading here;

What the hell is that movie about?
Lynch spends the first two thirds of the movie building up a fabulous tense,
menacing atmosphere, even if the plot **seemed** a little "by numbers" on a
superficial level.  I was enjoying it immensely (ok, so i had ignored a few
bits and peices that i couldn't make sense of, but only a few).  Then all of
a sudden it seemed to go haywire!  I've heard the term "rollercoaster ride"
used to describe films, but this was ridiculous.
At the end of the movie the everyone was saying "eh, where did you get
lost?" and "what the fuck was that about?".  Yea, that spanish singer was
superb.....but what had it got to do with anything???  Why did the
charcters/actors change?  Did they change???  For teh last portion of the
movie i was working frantically in an attempt to keep track of who was who.
And why did the old couple become these stupid tiny laughing things??  eh???
what is the significance of the blue box?  and didn't that little old
psychic woman remind you of Joni?? and why would you  introduce such an odd
and interesting character at a seemingly crucial point in a movie, not to
use her again??  The cowboy??  The dwarf in the wheelchair??
And that lesbian sex scene (although my friend appreciated it for obvious
titilation reasons)....well, what did i have to do with the story?
anything??  is that the point??

Ok., i was confused, as you may have gathered.  So i decided to see what the
critics were saying.  THEY LOVED IT!!!!!
Well feck that.  Just because they didn't understand it they pretended it
was genius (Oh god, Toni Morrisons Paradise all over again!!!).
I think it was described as "dream like" and "hypnotic".  It was originally
intended as a pilot for a tv show.  It has something to do with problems of
personal identity (more like problems writing a coherent script with a
coherent storyline) and unrealised ambitions and dreams.
The trick, according to the critics,with David Lynch is to surrender
yourself to the mood, and not the plot or charatcers (???).
I remember reading one review which told of the genius of David Lynch, and
how this film was a risque expose of the hollywood myth!  On the "deeper
level", this movie has to with the way in which hollywood is all about being
someone else; becoming someone else (AAHAAAA!)  So, normal people become
actors, actors become characters, actors change characters.....audiences
empathise with characters and project their dreams and ambitions onto the
silver screen (hell, isn't that why it can be so hard to find the kind of
romance we desire...not all romantic situations are Notting Hill/ this is
reminding me of something Barbara Streisand says in The Mirror Has Two
Faces....i digress), and audiences project identities onto the actors they
can never *really* know.

Mmmmm, now i see!
Give me The Thirty Nine Steps any day!!!

At about the same time a fantastic movie was released here called The
Believer, with teh great Ryan Gosling (Remember teh Titans; Murder By
Numbers; Young Hercules) turning in a powerful performance that would shame
many of our oscar winners.  He really acts rings around the script.  If you
havn't seen it; do! If you want a feel good movie; don't!!  It is disturbing
after a fashion.
GARRET

NP- Counting Crows, Rain King

Reply via email to