[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:14 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > > > No that's not what I wanted folks to think > > > > > > How can you want others to think a certain way. Thoughts just > > > come. > > > > Who knows where Judy comes up with this stuff? Apparently a > > number of us make it a hobby to tinker with the collective > > thought-field of the planet in an effort to manipulate public > > opinion, I dunno. :-) > > Do we really believe that neither new morning nor Vaj > has ever encountered the concept of propaganda? They've > never seen advertising? They've never watched a > political speech? Gee, what do you think. What thoughts just come?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:14 PM, new.morning wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > No that's not what I wanted folks to think > > > > How can you want others to think a certain way. Thoughts just > > come. > > Who knows where Judy comes up with this stuff? Apparently a > number of us make it a hobby to tinker with the collective > thought-field of the planet in an effort to manipulate public > opinion, I dunno. :-) Do we really believe that neither new morning nor Vaj has ever encountered the concept of propaganda? They've never seen advertising? They've never watched a political speech? They've never heard of persuasion? Or brainwashing? Do they truly believe the only way to manipulate public opinion is by some siddhi-like "tinkering with the collective thought field"? Or do both of them want to *make us think* that's the case? (Or was new morning just doing his usual shtick, whereas Vaj is rather desperately trying to cover his tracks?)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Vaj wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: > >> Eccentricity is often mistaken for art, but not for long. Time >> always sorts out real art from the merely eccentric. A vata-deranged >> character in a novel or a painting obviously does not necessarily >> mean that the artist is vata-deranged. The original charge was that >> MD is a vata-deranged piece of work because DL is vata deranged. >> Something like that. > > > Actually nothing like that. I've not even seen MD! > > Dr. Pete did make some comments on it, but that's about it. I bet that Dr. Pete saw the same version I recorded on the My Network TV which is what some independent stations use for program source. If so it would be an "airlines" version if one can imagine MD playing on an airline. :) After commercials removed the movie I had 1 hour and 48 minutes of a 2 hour 25 minute movie. I'm sure the juicier scenes were cut. ;-) http://www.mynetworktv.com/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Barry writes snipped: It's the same thing we see in those who feel that *their* subjec- tive experiences are better than other people's subjective experiences. Tom T: Another way to look at any and all experiences is as a storage device. We have an "Experience" and the reason we do is that we are currently unable to fully process all the knowledge that was presented by that "Experience". As we go back into said Experience and ask it for the Knowledge or Understanding it has for us,we gradually take that Experience off the puja table and assimilate it into who we really are. In other words as we convert it from storage device to understanding it becomes less and less available as memory and just becomes accepted as who we are. Hope that rings a bell for some here. As in where did all those fantastic experiences go to. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Peter wrote: > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind of > genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work expresses > such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > conflict. These are places i usually only visit with > my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > psychic hells is beyond me. And this is the guy who is > the elite spokes person for the TMO. Oy vay! Do the > Rajas get special screening of his works? > Quack!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was > > > > equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly > > > > get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply > > > > assumes a different narrative stance for different works. > > > > > > I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important > > > to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved > > > great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, > > > so you're not likely to get a rational argument from > > > him. > > > > Another lie from Judy. > > Well, that's two lies from Vaj in a mere > four words. > > As Vaj knows, I don't lie. I haven't lied > before, and I wasn't lying here. > > > Actually I never said that. > > And, of course, I never *said* Vaj said that. > The word I used was "portrayed." There are lots > of ways to portray something a certain way > without actually articulating it, including by > misleading one's audience. > > In this case, Vaj's interesting term > "meditational disorder," given that Lynch is a > TMer, was obviously intended to suggest--without > actually saying so--that Lynch's purported > "imbalance" is caused by TM. > > So Vaj's denial here is another lie. > > And here comes yet another one: > > > I indicated that's it's likely a condition > > that existed before TM > > Here's what Vaj said: > > "In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very > likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his > involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything > that tweaks or increases vata-dosha." > > The clear implication is that Lynch had a > predisposition to "vata derangement" prior > to starting TM, but that it had been > exacerbated *by* TM into a "yogic" (or, later, > "meditational") disorder. Hard to imagine a > yogic or meditational disorder developing in > someone who didn't meditate. > > And we know Vaj believes TM and the TM-Sidhi > program brings about "vata derangement." > > OK, ready for another lie from Vaj? > > > and that he had actually improved over time! > > > > Vaj attributed Lynch's "improvement" not to TM, > but to panchakarma: > > "I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over > the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which > provides an excellent level of care and service (although > exorbitantly expensive)." > > > Now whether or not TM has truly helped the condition is a good > > question. He claims it has. Maybe you buy that, maybe you don't. > > Of course, like any skilled propagandist, he > pretends to be uncertain about the conclusion > he has attempted to mislead his audience to > draw--a show of open-mindedness designed to give, > as Pooh-Bah assures Ko-Ko in "The Mikado," > "artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald > and unconvincing narrative." > > Whenever Vaj accuses somebody--especially me--of > lying, it's time to pay *very* close attention > indeed to his claims. Read my lips: When the TM-ers brake loose from Vaj's private concentrationcamp they will put him in a cell with plenty of fresh air, expose him to 8 hours of Maharishi Channel, 8 hours of real Rig-ved chanting (not the mumbojumbo Bhuddist stuff he believe is chanting), all the Pitta balancing food he can digest until he begs on his knees for instruction in knowledge. Then, and only when all his doshas are in perfect balance and and he has stopped lying, Vaj has become so utterly boring that he will never even dream of creating any piece of art, he will receive instruction in real meditation. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:14 PM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No that's not what I wanted folks to think How can you want others to think a certain way. Thoughts just come. (or as a friend of mine use to say -- "thoughts just cum". But she was a pervert. :) ) Who knows where Judy comes up with this stuff? Apparently a number of us make it a hobby to tinker with the collective thought-field of the planet in an effort to manipulate public opinion, I dunno. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:40 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > > > I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important > > > > to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved > > > > great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, > > > > so you're not likely to get a rational argument from > > > > him. > > > > > > Another lie from Judy. > > > > Well, that's two lies from Vaj in a mere > > four words. > > > > As Vaj knows, I don't lie. I haven't lied > > before, and I wasn't lying here. > > ROFLOL! I don't know where you got that idea. I've watched > you hurl lies for YEARS (mostly at Barry). I don't lie, Vaj, to Barry or anybody else, and you're all too well aware of that. Nor can you, of course, document your claim. > > > Actually I never said that. > > > > And, of course, I never *said* Vaj said that. > > The word I used was "portrayed." There are lots > > of ways to portray something a certain way > > without actually articulating it, including by > > misleading one's audience. > > > > In this case, Vaj's interesting term > > "meditational disorder," given that Lynch is a > > TMer, was obviously intended to suggest--without > > actually saying so--that Lynch's purported > > "imbalance" is caused by TM. > > > > So Vaj's denial here is another lie. > > > > And here comes yet another one: > > > > > I indicated that's it's likely a condition > > > that existed before TM > > > > Here's what Vaj said: > > > > "In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very > > likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his > > involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything > > that tweaks or increases vata-dosha." > > > > The clear implication is that Lynch had a > > predisposition to "vata derangement" prior > > to starting TM, but that it had been > > exacerbated *by* TM into a "yogic" (or, later, > > "meditational") disorder. Hard to imagine a > > yogic or meditational disorder developing in > > someone who didn't meditate. > > But, nonetheless, I did mention a preexisting disorder. Irrelevant. The issue is that you denied you had tried to associate Lynch's "disorders" with TM, but that was a lie; that's precisely what you did. > Nice try to obfuscate and misdirect, but no cigar. No, no, Vaj. I'm quoting *your very own words*. If I were "obfuscating and misdirecting," it would be simple for you to show how, but you can't. > > And we know Vaj believes TM and the TM-Sidhi > > program brings about "vata derangement." > > > > OK, ready for another lie from Vaj? > > Another? There was no first one. Stop lying Judy! > > > > > > and that he had actually improved over time! > > > > > > > > Vaj attributed Lynch's "improvement" not to TM, > > but to panchakarma: > > A TM movement based PK program. Obfuscation and misdirection from Vaj. The issue, of course, is whether TM caused Lynch's purported "meditational/yogic disorder." Vaj has repeatedly claimed TM and the TM-Sidhi program result in such disorders. This was just another instance of the tactic. Lynch attributes his improvement to > TM. TM is part of the ayurvedic approach of Maharishi Ayurveda (as > Judy knows), since it considers the "mistake of the intellect" > basic to doshic imbalance arising in the first place. > > But Judy already knew that. Just another obfuscation and > misdirection. No, it's irrelevant to the point at issue, as Vaj knows. > > "I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over > > the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which > > provides an excellent level of care and service (although > > exorbitantly expensive)." > > Actually what I say is it was expensive and they provide a good > care. ROTFL! Vaj would have you believe he never meant to suggest he was attributing Lynch's purported "improvement" to panchakarma. Even if that were the case (which it isn't), Vaj would be left with no explanation for the "improvement" except Lynch's TM practice. > > > Now whether or not TM has truly helped the condition is a good > > > question. He claims it has. Maybe you buy that, maybe you don't. > > > > Of course, like any skilled propagandist, he > > pretends to be uncertain about the conclusion > > he has attempted to mislead his audience to > > draw--a show of open-mindedness designed to give, > > as Pooh-Bah assures Ko-Ko in "The Mikado," > > "artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald > > and unconvincing narrative." > > LOL, you read WAY to much into casual speech my dear! Nope, sorry. It's a standard propaganda technique, and you use it frequently. > > Whenever Vaj accuses somebody--especially me--of > > lying, it's time to pay *very* close attention > > indeed to his claims. > > Judy, we see you doing it to Barry almost daily. Unfortuna
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No that's not what I wanted folks to think How can you want others to think a certain way. Thoughts just come. (or as a friend of mine use to say -- "thoughts just cum". But she was a pervert. :) )
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:42 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Vaj wrote: > > > Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some > > > of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one > > > would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some > > > innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those > > > realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use > > > imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or > > > some mixture of these)? > > > > Notice the possibility that Vaj carefully *leaves > > out* here--that Lynch, like a good therapist, has > > intuitive insight into the mental processes of > > psychotics without himself suffering from "imbalance." > > > > That's actually what the article Vaj quoted from > > "The Psychologist" suggests. > > Actually the reason I posted the article was for the > perspective it poised. The perspective you wanted folks to *think* it "poised," but actually doesn't. Ah, now you're a mind reader? Time to get the Ouija board checked methinks. No that's not what I wanted folks to think -- another lie. I guess once you start it's hard to stop, huh Judy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:40 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > wrote: > > > > > So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was > > > equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly > > > get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply > > > assumes a different narrative stance for different works. > > > > I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important > > to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved > > great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, > > so you're not likely to get a rational argument from > > him. > > Another lie from Judy. Well, that's two lies from Vaj in a mere four words. As Vaj knows, I don't lie. I haven't lied before, and I wasn't lying here. ROFLOL! I don't know where you got that idea. I've watched you hurl lies for YEARS (mostly at Barry). > Actually I never said that. And, of course, I never *said* Vaj said that. The word I used was "portrayed." There are lots of ways to portray something a certain way without actually articulating it, including by misleading one's audience. In this case, Vaj's interesting term "meditational disorder," given that Lynch is a TMer, was obviously intended to suggest--without actually saying so--that Lynch's purported "imbalance" is caused by TM. So Vaj's denial here is another lie. And here comes yet another one: > I indicated that's it's likely a condition > that existed before TM Here's what Vaj said: "In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything that tweaks or increases vata-dosha." The clear implication is that Lynch had a predisposition to "vata derangement" prior to starting TM, but that it had been exacerbated *by* TM into a "yogic" (or, later, "meditational") disorder. Hard to imagine a yogic or meditational disorder developing in someone who didn't meditate. But, nonetheless, I did mention a preexisting disorder. Nice try to obfuscate and misdirect, but no cigar. And we know Vaj believes TM and the TM-Sidhi program brings about "vata derangement." OK, ready for another lie from Vaj? Another? There was no first one. Stop lying Judy! > and that he had actually improved over time! Vaj attributed Lynch's "improvement" not to TM, but to panchakarma: A TM movement based PK program. Lynch attributes his improvement to TM. TM is part of the ayurvedic approach of Maharishi Ayurveda (as Judy knows), since it considers the "mistake of the intellect" basic to doshic imbalance arising in the first place. But Judy already knew that. Just another obfuscation and misdirection. "I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly expensive)." Actually what I say is it was expensive and they provide a good care. Again, Judy lying about lying. Does that make you a meta-liar? > Now whether or not TM has truly helped the condition is a good > question. He claims it has. Maybe you buy that, maybe you don't. Of course, like any skilled propagandist, he pretends to be uncertain about the conclusion he has attempted to mislead his audience to draw--a show of open-mindedness designed to give, as Pooh-Bah assures Ko-Ko in "The Mikado," "artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." LOL, you read WAY to much into casual speech my dear! Not even close, (as Judy deliberately does to try to manufacture "lies"). Such childishness. Whenever Vaj accuses somebody--especially me--of lying, it's time to pay *very* close attention indeed to his claims. Judy, we see you doing it to Barry almost daily. Why would anyone be surprised? It's chronic!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > Vaj wrote: > > > Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some > > > of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one > > > would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some > > > innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those > > > realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use > > > imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or > > > some mixture of these)? > > > > Notice the possibility that Vaj carefully *leaves > > out* here--that Lynch, like a good therapist, has > > intuitive insight into the mental processes of > > psychotics without himself suffering from "imbalance." > > > > That's actually what the article Vaj quoted from > > "The Psychologist" suggests. > > Actually the reason I posted the article was for the > perspective it poised. The perspective you wanted folks to *think* it "poised," but actually doesn't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > wrote: > > > > > So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was > > > equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly > > > get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply > > > assumes a different narrative stance for different works. > > > > I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important > > to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved > > great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, > > so you're not likely to get a rational argument from > > him. > > Another lie from Judy. Well, that's two lies from Vaj in a mere four words. As Vaj knows, I don't lie. I haven't lied before, and I wasn't lying here. > Actually I never said that. And, of course, I never *said* Vaj said that. The word I used was "portrayed." There are lots of ways to portray something a certain way without actually articulating it, including by misleading one's audience. In this case, Vaj's interesting term "meditational disorder," given that Lynch is a TMer, was obviously intended to suggest--without actually saying so--that Lynch's purported "imbalance" is caused by TM. So Vaj's denial here is another lie. And here comes yet another one: > I indicated that's it's likely a condition > that existed before TM Here's what Vaj said: "In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything that tweaks or increases vata-dosha." The clear implication is that Lynch had a predisposition to "vata derangement" prior to starting TM, but that it had been exacerbated *by* TM into a "yogic" (or, later, "meditational") disorder. Hard to imagine a yogic or meditational disorder developing in someone who didn't meditate. And we know Vaj believes TM and the TM-Sidhi program brings about "vata derangement." OK, ready for another lie from Vaj? > and that he had actually improved over time! Vaj attributed Lynch's "improvement" not to TM, but to panchakarma: "I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly expensive)." > Now whether or not TM has truly helped the condition is a good > question. He claims it has. Maybe you buy that, maybe you don't. Of course, like any skilled propagandist, he pretends to be uncertain about the conclusion he has attempted to mislead his audience to draw--a show of open-mindedness designed to give, as Pooh-Bah assures Ko-Ko in "The Mikado," "artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." Whenever Vaj accuses somebody--especially me--of lying, it's time to pay *very* close attention indeed to his claims.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: > Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some > of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one > would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some > innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those > realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use > imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or > some mixture of these)? Notice the possibility that Vaj carefully *leaves out* here--that Lynch, like a good therapist, has intuitive insight into the mental processes of psychotics without himself suffering from "imbalance." That's actually what the article Vaj quoted from "The Psychologist" suggests. Actually the reason I posted the article was for the perspective it poised.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 9:38 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was > equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly > get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply > assumes a different narrative stance for different works. I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, so you're not likely to get a rational argument from him. Another lie from Judy. Actually I never said that. I indicated that's it's likely a condition that existed before TM and that he had actually improved over time! Now whether or not TM has truly helped the condition is a good question. He claims it has. Maybe you buy that, maybe you don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was > equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly > get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply > assumes a different narrative stance for different works. I'm with you on this one, Angela. It's very important to Vaj to be able to portray a TMer who has achieved great success as somehow having been damaged by TM, so you're not likely to get a rational argument from him. > Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some > of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one > would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some > innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those > realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use > imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or > some mixture of these)? Notice the possibility that Vaj carefully *leaves out* here--that Lynch, like a good therapist, has intuitive insight into the mental processes of psychotics without himself suffering from "imbalance." That's actually what the article Vaj quoted from "The Psychologist" suggests. > In the example I gave earlier of Van Gogh This "example" is rather loaded, since we *know* Van Gogh had serious mental problems. That's why Vaj chose it, hoping readers would make the association, even though it makes no sense on its face.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Angela Mailander wrote: Eccentricity is often mistaken for art, but not for long. Time always sorts out real art from the merely eccentric. A vata- deranged character in a novel or a painting obviously does not necessarily mean that the artist is vata-deranged. The original charge was that MD is a vata-deranged piece of work because DL is vata deranged. Something like that. Actually nothing like that. I've not even seen MD! Dr. Pete did make some comments on it, but that's about it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Eccentricity is often mistaken for art, but not for long. Time always sorts out real art from the merely eccentric. A vata-deranged character in a novel or a painting obviously does not necessarily mean that the artist is vata-deranged. The original charge was that MD is a vata-deranged piece of work because DL is vata deranged. Something like that. Even if MD as a whole gives us a portrait of vata imbalance, that doesn't mean that DL is vata deranged. Artists, novelists, poets, film makers are actors in a sense. That is why the narrative voice in a novel, for instance, is never equated with the author's voice by anyone but the most naive readers. He may assume a different voice in a different novel. He may even layer the voice as is the case in Bronte's Wuthering Heights, which is told by an idiot appropriately named Lockwood, who hears the story from a housekeeper whose point of view is problematical--is she merely conventional or is she evil? Or is a conventional judgment of others essentially evil? You see the characters, Catherine and Heathcliff filtered through those two lenses which were created by an overriding narrative voice, which is, however, not the voice of Emily Bronte as she lived and breathed. So there is no way DL can by summed up by MD. After all, he was equally capable when he did The Straight Story. Did he suddenly get cured of his vata imbalance? Like any artist, he simply assumes a different narrative stance for different works. Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:48 AM, new.morning wrote: I find the Vata premise full of air. And while I am no signing onto, or off, the Lynch vata theory/premise -- lets suppose that is correct. Films, novels, music etc are from different points of view. Part of artistry is to convey different points of views accurately, authentically -- or at least interestingly. The artist getting inside another's head and conveying that is a dimension of art. So why would an interesting and accurate portrait of a vata-person not be a reasonable subject to explore in art? That's just it New Morn, it would be not just reasonable, it would be (or could be, depending on the person) chic due to it's idiosyncrasies. Please keep in mind that I never said that people with underlying vata or meditational disorders can't create fascinating art, in fact sometimes it's the opposite and it's the quirkiness that draws people or makes their art unique. In other words people manifesting an eccentric energy may draw people and an audience simply because of those eccentricities. So its a premise full of air if it is a premise saying any depiction of vata is not art. No, of course it's not saying that, but some tried to construe it as that, I'm not sure why. It would color their art, because imbalances of any kind color the way we see our world through the senses. Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or some mixture of these)? In the example I gave earlier of Van Gogh, when you look at this sketch up close, it looks like manic and disconnected scribbling. But step back 5 or 6 feet and it looks like a detailed etching! So in some cases, you just need to capture the context intended. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:48 AM, new.morning wrote: I find the Vata premise full of air. And while I am no signing onto, or off, the Lynch vata theory/premise -- lets suppose that is correct. Films, novels, music etc are from different points of view. Part of artistry is to convey different points of views accurately, authentically -- or at least interestingly. The artist getting inside another's head and conveying that is a dimension of art. So why would an interesting and accurate portrait of a vata-person not be a reasonable subject to explore in art? That's just it New Morn, it would be not just reasonable, it would be (or could be, depending on the person) chic due to it's idiosyncrasies. Please keep in mind that I never said that people with underlying vata or meditational disorders can't create fascinating art, in fact sometimes it's the opposite and it's the quirkiness that draws people or makes their art unique. In other words people manifesting an eccentric energy may draw people and an audience simply because of those eccentricities. So its a premise full of air if it is a premise saying any depiction of vata is not art. No, of course it's not saying that, but some tried to construe it as that, I'm not sure why. It would color their art, because imbalances of any kind color the way we see our world through the senses. Now in DL's case some of us (like Dr. P and I) wonder why some of his films so disturbingly create realms of mental hells one would only likely experience in the mentally ill. Does some innate imbalance predispose the writer (of such films) to those realms, was there underlying trauma of some sort or do they use imbalance as a springboard to unconventional creative realms (or some mixture of these)? In the example I gave earlier of Van Gogh, when you look at this sketch up close, it looks like manic and disconnected scribbling. But step back 5 or 6 feet and it looks like a detailed etching! So in some cases, you just need to capture the context intended.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > I have no problem with fantastical elements in > > > film or non-linear storytelling. But *as a > > > personal preference*, I like storytelling. Lynch > > > often, as I hear from people who have worked > > > closely with him, doesn't even *have* a story > > > in mind; he just throws weird images together > > > and hopes that they'll somehow "come together" > > > into a story. > > I heard a recent Lynch interview on NPR. He said that get gets a > feeling / a "vision" / an impulse and tries to describe it in film. > When he feels that he has captured the feeling weel, he is satisfied > with the film. (Some) painters do that, musicians do that. What is > unartistic -- in an of it self -- about a filmaker that makes such > unartistic. Some seem tied to a linear plot, an if a film doesn't have > one, its a bad film. Thats ok, but rather a limited view of film and art. > > I had similar feels to T3rinity about MD. The theatre scene is great. > His characters need to be taken literally. They do invoke a feeling. > Which in addition to that which the feeling conveys, it also raises > questions as to why one reacts to certain scenes the way they do. And > some scenes seem like an inverse. Like the scene is a color negative, > and it can get flipped foreground/background and reveal some > interesting things. Not every ones cup of tea. But its not crap > simply on grounds that it is not a Capraesque plot and full of nice/nice. > > I find the Vata premise full of air. And while I am no signing onto, > or off, the Lynch vata theory/premise -- lets suppose that is correct. > Films, novels, music etc are from different points of view. Part of > artistry is to convey different points of views accurately, > authentically -- or at least interestingly. The artist getting inside > another's head and conveying that is a dimension of art. So why would > an interesting and accurate portrait of a vata-person not be a > reasonable subject to explore in art? So its a premise full of air if > it is a premise saying any depiction of vata is not art. "The Scream" by Edvard Munch, pure vata as much of his art. The shrink petersuphgen would diagnose him as pshycotic as the head of the pshyco-departement in Vaj's private Guantanamo.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I have no problem with fantastical elements in > > film or non-linear storytelling. But *as a > > personal preference*, I like storytelling. Lynch > > often, as I hear from people who have worked > > closely with him, doesn't even *have* a story > > in mind; he just throws weird images together > > and hopes that they'll somehow "come together" > > into a story. I heard a recent Lynch interview on NPR. He said that get gets a feeling / a "vision" / an impulse and tries to describe it in film. When he feels that he has captured the feeling weel, he is satisfied with the film. (Some) painters do that, musicians do that. What is unartistic -- in an of it self -- about a filmaker that makes such unartistic. Some seem tied to a linear plot, an if a film doesn't have one, its a bad film. Thats ok, but rather a limited view of film and art. I had similar feels to T3rinity about MD. The theatre scene is great. His characters need to be taken literally. They do invoke a feeling. Which in addition to that which the feeling conveys, it also raises questions as to why one reacts to certain scenes the way they do. And some scenes seem like an inverse. Like the scene is a color negative, and it can get flipped foreground/background and reveal some interesting things. Not every ones cup of tea. But its not crap simply on grounds that it is not a Capraesque plot and full of nice/nice. I find the Vata premise full of air. And while I am no signing onto, or off, the Lynch vata theory/premise -- lets suppose that is correct. Films, novels, music etc are from different points of view. Part of artistry is to convey different points of views accurately, authentically -- or at least interestingly. The artist getting inside another's head and conveying that is a dimension of art. So why would an interesting and accurate portrait of a vata-person not be a reasonable subject to explore in art? So its a premise full of air if it is a premise saying any depiction of vata is not art. > > FWIW, I've heard that's sort of how Casablanca was made--they would > come up with lines and ideas for scenes right before filiming. > Sometimes Woody Allen does that too. The big diff is, when they > throw the whole thing together, there's an actual story there. > > > > > For some viewers and critics, they obviously > > do. I'm not one of them. I just see an incoher- > > ent jumble of images thrown up onscreen by > > someone who knows that he can get away with > > doing this because critics will cut him a break. > > I'm not sure too many people at all can relate to films like MD. > Sal >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Yeah, I, too say, "Amen" to Trinity's assessment. "Entarted" is especially good. nablusoss1008 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow, thanks to Vaj I have now learned of a whole new range of > deceases, there are 'Vata derangements' there are 'Yogic disorders' > and 'meditational disorders' and a great system of diagnosis as well: > Art (or should I say 'ent-Art -ed'?) (of course in addition to the > quivering voice). I wonder if the Nazis had a similar scientific > system of determinating (or terminating) 'Völkische Gesundheit', yeah > I think being black or a Jew was thought of as a genetic 'dis- order' ( > as opposed to the right 'order'), and well I don't have to tell you > about 'entartete Kunst' (deviating Art), or the burning of literature. > Once you have a system of determinating what is 'Right' (or balanced) > everything that deviates from it is, well a deviation, or 'out of > balance', or people doing the wrong meditation technique have > 'meditational or yogic disorders'. To me this is truely fascist > thinking, well not in the sense of terminating people, but well in the > sense of condemning them with truely pseudo-spiritual or medical > lingo. This is pseudoscientific junk of the first class. Amen :-) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wow, thanks to Vaj I have now learned of a whole new range of > deceases, there are 'Vata derangements' there are 'Yogic disorders' > and 'meditational disorders' and a great system of diagnosis as well: > Art (or should I say 'ent-Art -ed'?) (of course in addition to the > quivering voice). I wonder if the Nazis had a similar scientific > system of determinating (or terminating) 'Völkische Gesundheit', yeah > I think being black or a Jew was thought of as a genetic 'dis- order' ( > as opposed to the right 'order'), and well I don't have to tell you > about 'entartete Kunst' (deviating Art), or the burning of literature. > Once you have a system of determinating what is 'Right' (or balanced) > everything that deviates from it is, well a deviation, or 'out of > balance', or people doing the wrong meditation technique have > 'meditational or yogic disorders'. To me this is truely fascist > thinking, well not in the sense of terminating people, but well in the > sense of condemning them with truely pseudo-spiritual or medical > lingo. This is pseudoscientific junk of the first class. Amen :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Wow, thanks to Vaj I have now learned of a whole new range of deceases, there are 'Vata derangements' there are 'Yogic disorders' and 'meditational disorders' and a great system of diagnosis as well: Art (or should I say 'ent-Art -ed'?) (of course in addition to the quivering voice). I wonder if the Nazis had a similar scientific system of determinating (or terminating) 'Völkische Gesundheit', yeah I think being black or a Jew was thought of as a genetic 'dis-order' ( as opposed to the right 'order'), and well I don't have to tell you about 'entartete Kunst' (deviating Art), or the burning of literature. Once you have a system of determinating what is 'Right' (or balanced) everything that deviates from it is, well a deviation, or 'out of balance', or people doing the wrong meditation technique have 'meditational or yogic disorders'. To me this is truely fascist thinking, well not in the sense of terminating people, but well in the sense of condemning them with truely pseudo-spiritual or medical lingo. This is pseudoscientific junk of the first class. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's what I said: > ".. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and > IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. > ..The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. > ..I can see how his creative process seems slanted > by a parallel derangement." > It's just a comment of the vaca, kaya and chitta: voice as reflecting > energy, side-by-side with "body" and mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Those who find the poor, tortured souls in "Mul- > > holland Drive" fascinating and worthy of their > > interest and/or their compassion should rent a > > copy of "The Story of Adele H." > > I agree, just saw that last year, believe it or not. Great > storytelling does not have to involve bizarro weirdness, and if it > does, it better be interesting weirdness, otherwise it falls flat. > IMO. > > Ever seen a Sunday in the Country? Another great French film. Yep. Betrand Tavernier, one of the greats of French cinema. Tonight I'm going to re-watch an olde favorite French film (although not one of Tavernier's) called "Tous les matins du monde" (All the Mornings of the World). It's a great story about the teacher-student relationship, in the context of music. The film was inspired by the discovery of a great but previously not-well-known 17th-century viola player and composer named Sainte Colombe by modern- day viola/cello maestro and composer Jordi Savall. Sainte Colombe is played masterfully by Jean-Pierre Marielle, and there is an interesting set of per- formances by Gérard Depardieu as Sainte Colombe's student, later in life, and Guillaume Depardieu (Gérard's son) as the same student in his youth. Wonderful story, with great acting, but the star of the movie is really the music. If you see it and enjoy it, you'll want the soundtrack.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Those who find the poor, tortured souls in "Mul- holland Drive" fascinating and worthy of their interest and/or their compassion should rent a copy of "The Story of Adele H." I agree, just saw that last year, believe it or not. Great storytelling does not have to involve bizarro weirdness, and if it does, it better be interesting weirdness, otherwise it falls flat. IMO. Ever seen a Sunday in the Country? Another great French film. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 2, 2007, at 2:23 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I have no problem with fantastical elements in film or non-linear storytelling. But *as a personal preference*, I like storytelling. Lynch often, as I hear from people who have worked closely with him, doesn't even *have* a story in mind; he just throws weird images together and hopes that they'll somehow "come together" into a story. FWIW, I've heard that's sort of how Casablanca was made--they would come up with lines and ideas for scenes right before filiming. Sometimes Woody Allen does that too. The big diff is, when they throw the whole thing together, there's an actual story there. For some viewers and critics, they obviously do. I'm not one of them. I just see an incoher- ent jumble of images thrown up onscreen by someone who knows that he can get away with doing this because critics will cut him a break. I'm not sure too many people at all can relate to films like MD. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 1, 2007, at 5:15 PM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. > Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his > peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on > meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that > science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. LMAO!! (BTW, it's "waxes eloquent," not "eloquently." "Waxes" is synonymous with "becomes," not "speaks.") Thanks editor Stein. I'll keep that in mind when I consider publishing my emails in the New Yorker!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: No, you did not say he was sick. You said he was vata imbalanced (much more specific than "sick," which I used as a "ballpark" term). You also said that you can see this imbalance in his work. Correct me if this is not what you said. No I did not say that. Here's what I said: "One of the first things I observe or listen to in determining whether someone's psychophysiology and bioenergy are balanced or unbalanced is their voice. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything that tweaks or increases vata-dosha. Since this style of diagnosis is not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly expensive). But his voice even still is like nails on a chalkboard if I listen too closely. I can see how his creative process seems slanted by a parallel derangement. But one does hope he continues to heal." It's just a comment of the vaca, kaya and chitta: voice as reflecting energy, side-by-side with "body" and mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Peter wrote: > > > "Psychic limbo" is a good phrase. Jimmy Stewart's > > character in "Its a Wonderful Life" is a > > psychologically healthy person struggling. Lynch's > > main characters seem to be wading through some sort of > > emotional hell that they never leave. Where's David > > Boardwell when you need him? > > If I knew who he was maybe I could tell you. :) Agreed about the > Jimmy Stewart character. Barry put it about as well as you can, I > think--MD is boring, plain and simple. (Haven't seen any of his > others so can't comment.) If I have to struggle to make sense of > something and to try and figure out what's going on, I'm not likely > to want to watch it. But I also agree the film is eerily > disturbing. Just to clarify, I didn't find MD disturbing. Lynch never managed to get me interested enough in any of the characters to be disturbed by them. I found myself fascinated by Naomi Watts as I watched the movie, but I noticed even at the time that I was sitting there thinking, "Wow...this woman can *act*." In other words, I was seeing her the whole time *as* an actress, not as the character(s) she was playing. Not a good sign, for me. I actually *like* films in which I get to (as opposed to "have to") struggle to figure things out. A good example is "Memento." The ballsy storytelling style (telling a mystery backwards, from the end to the beginning) fits in perfectly with the hero's disabil- ity (inability to form short-term memories), and added a wonderful WTF-ness to what might otherwise have been a pretty straightforward (and thus boring) whodunnit. One of the best "figure it out" movies of recent years IMO was "The Usual Suspects." The answer to the mystery of Kaiser Soeze is right in front of you at all times -- hell, it's even on the *poster* for the film -- but very few people get it until the end. That film inspired in me the highest tribute I can personally pay to a movie -- I watched it once in the theater, then walked out, paid for a second admission, and watched it again. I guess my feeling about the filmmaker forcing me to "figure out what is going on" is that it's worth the ride to me if something really *is* going on. :-) In many of Lynch's films, I really don't get the feeling that anything is. Other great "gotta figure out what's going on" films that I thought were worth the ride include: * Blow-up (a classic by Antonioni) * Swimming Pool (fairly recent French film) * Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch/Johnny Depp) * House Of Games (film about cons that is itself a con) * Immortal Beloved (another film I saw twice in a row) * Rashomon (of course) * Spy Game (surprisingly good film by Tony Scott) * Y Tu Mama Tambien (great film by Alfonso Cuarón) * One Deadly Summer (one of Isabelle Adjani's best) * The Ninth Configuration (Blatty's own film, even more Catholic than The Exorcist)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
> > "Psychic limbo" is a good phrase. Jimmy Stewart's
> > character in "Its a Wonderful Life" is a
> > psychologically healthy person struggling. Lynch's
> > main characters seem to be wading through some sort of
> > emotional hell that they never leave. Where's David
> > Boardwell when you need him?
>
> Have you seen Lynch's "The Straight Story"?
> http://imdb.com/title/tt0166896/
>
> Sounds more your speed.
More my speed as well. Good storytelling with
a minimum of directorial self-indulgence, a
quality which was also present, strangely
enough, in "Blue Velvet." Those two Lynch
films I liked; the others...uh...not so much.
What he lacks, in my opinion, is interestingly
one of the buzzwords of the TMO -- coherence.
I have no problem with fantastical elements in
film or non-linear storytelling. But *as a
personal preference*, I like storytelling. Lynch
often, as I hear from people who have worked
closely with him, doesn't even *have* a story
in mind; he just throws weird images together
and hopes that they'll somehow "come together"
into a story.
For some viewers and critics, they obviously
do. I'm not one of them. I just see an incoher-
ent jumble of images thrown up onscreen by
someone who knows that he can get away with
doing this because critics will cut him a break.
Same with Godard. Back when he was the enfant
terrible of Nouvelle Vague cinema, everyone
cut him a break and thought that his images
must "mean something," at least to him. It was
the Sixties, so drugs helped perpetuate that
illusion. :-) But try watching any of his films
these days; it's a painful experience.
As long as we're dumping on famous directors :-),
another one I consider *highly* overrated is
Stanley Kubrick. Never has lived an artist more
clueless as to human beings and how they really
interact in real life. It was said by some wags
about his last film ("Eyes Wide Shut") that he
died before it came out so that he wouldn't have
to read the reviews; there could be some sad
truth in this. IMO, the Kubrick film that shows
his deficiencies more than any other wasn't even
directed by him; it was shot by Spielberg from
Kubrick's script as a kind of homage. "A.I." was
Kubrick squared. You know you're in trouble as
a director and a storyteller when your robot
characters have more personality than your human
ones.
Visually, Kubrick was a bit of an innovator, but
as a storyteller and as a viewer of the human
condition, I wouldn't even rank him in the top
100 best filmmakers, much less the top ten.
But then my favorite director growing up was
Francois Truffaut, so what can you expect? He
started as a critic, but then did what almost no
critic ever does and segued into being a creator
in the medium he wrote about, and one of its best.
Great heart, great storytelling, and somehow a
sense of light and lightness, even in his darkest
films (and boy! did he make some dark films).
Those who find the poor, tortured souls in "Mul-
holland Drive" fascinating and worthy of their
interest and/or their compassion should rent a
copy of "The Story of Adele H." One of the more
tortured souls in history, with hardly an "up"
moment in her life and in the film, but somehow
I emerged from that film with a feeling of
transcendence and upliftment, because of what
Truffaut had managed to somehow "infuse" into
this tortured character. I feel none of that
from Lynch or from Kubrick. It's like (for me)
Truffaut *felt* and *empathized* with his
tortured souls, whereas Lynch and Kubrick only
take pictures of them, without any feeling or
empathy or even sympathy.
Adele Hugo comes across onscreen as a human being
filmed by another human being, whereas Betty/Diane
in MD and Bill and Alice Harford in EWS come across
as robots, filmed by another robot.
Just my opinion, of course.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Vaj wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:00 PM, authfriend wrote: > >> And, perhaps even more significantly, he says all >> Lynch's work "expresses such emotional anguish and >> such deep confusion and conflict," apparently >> believing it is Lynch himself who is in emotional >> anguish, confusion, and conflict, when just about >> everything written about Lynch (at least that I've >> read) shows him to be pretty much at peace with >> himself. > > > One of the first things I observe or listen to in determining whether > someone's psychophysiology and bioenergy are balanced or unbalanced is > their voice. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and > IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes > his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything > that tweaks or increases vata-dosha. Since this style of diagnosis is > not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. > Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his > peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on > meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that > science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. > > I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the > years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which > provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly > expensive). But his voice even still is like nails on a chalkboard if > I listen too closely. I can see how his creative process seems slanted > by a parallel derangement. But one does hope he continues to heal. In the extras on "Empire Falls" you can see some MAPI bottles on his desk. He appears pretty grounded on the set which you have to be if you're going to be a director. Not that their haven't been some pretty ungrounded directors in the past. And Lynch is probably no where near as grounded as Hitchcock was.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
No, you did not say he was sick. You said he was vata imbalanced (much more specific than "sick," which I used as a "ballpark" term). You also said that you can see this imbalance in his work. Correct me if this is not what you said. I said, basically, "Show me." "Where in Lynche's work do you see vata imbalance? A term we should prolly define. Is there a causal relationship between the vata-imbalance you see in the man and the one you see in the work? Depends on the depth and breadth of what we should prolly call "authorial voice." The point where voice and vision are one. You would have to define "vata imbalance" and then you would have to show where in his work this imbalance, as you have defined it, is evident. If it turns out that you cannot show his work to suffer from this kind of imbalance, then you'd still be guilty of a special instance of the intentional fallacy. We are talking about an artist and his art. A visionary artist by all indications. You're saying he and it are vata imbalanced, merely. Is an oak tree something you'd call vata imbalanced? Prolly not. OK. Orchids are vata creatures if ever there were any. But are they unbalanced? Not in my heaven. They are perfect examples of pure vata in a balanced state. Some of the Absolute's most miraculous manifestations. You might be able to show that this guy's flicks are vata creatures. But unbalanced? How? Trinity has shown me the balance I suspected was there to be seen in Dave's art. I am not qualified to judge whether or not David Lynch suffers from vata imbalance, I have seen him only a few times on film. He comported himself very well the last time I saw him, which was the Berlin performance--a great human being and a great artist in a live-theater situation. That's what I saw. Vata? Yeah, it's an obvious call to make when a guy does the finger dance thing that Dave does. But unbalanced vata? By professional training and experience, I am qualified to judge whether or not a work of art is "balanced," which doesn't mean that I am incapable of making howler mistakes. I see a profound work of art when I look at this movie, and so does Trinity. That little post of hers was a brilliant piece of literary analysis. She gives you clear evidence of coherence of vision in her description of the function and meaning of concrete characters and other details of the cinematographer's art. He shows us "disturbance" (our own cultural disturbance, so far as I can tell). Does that mean he's disturbed? Does he show us increasing clarity with increasing depth of understanding? Show me. And show me where Trinity is in error. And also show me a specific instance of vata imbalance in the movie. You've made a diagnosis of Dave (an opinion only, since you prolly are not a close friend of his). Then, based on that opinion, you made a statement about his art, but you didn't show us anything like a symptom or a sign of it. Now, if I read your post correctly, then you also said that the cause of Dave's imbalance is faulty meditation. I can only scratch my head about how you could know that. Show me. What is it that he does wrong in his practice and how do you know? Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 1, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: This is a special instance of the intentional fallacy. The artist is sick, therefore his art is also sick. You'd have to show that in addition to stating that. Beethoven was deaf, but there is no indication that his music was written by someone who was tone deaf. No, it's not. I don't think you are getting the ayurvedic implications or explanation. The Beethoven analogy is a bad one since not only do we not know any detail of Beethoven ayurvedically, nor do we know, per the example given with DL, the "quality" of his voice. Note, I never said he was "sick". I'm not going into Ayurvedic theory, otherwise it'd be understood. I realize there are some here who will be familiar and some who won't. If the vayus are deranged, then so is prana, if prana is affected, then so is mind, if mind is affected, so is the persons way of interacting with the world. So therefore, his artistic expression in the world are modified by the underlying derangement. This would be one ayurvedic interpretation. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > > > > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > > > > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > > > > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > > > > disturbing crap. > > > > > > I would replace "disturbing" with "self-indulgent," > > > but other than that I agree completely. > > > > > > > Why people think he is some kind of genius is beyond > > > > me. > > > > > > Because they can't figure it out, and think that it > > > has some deep inner meaning. As far as I can tell, > > > both from watching his films and from knowing the > > > woman who was his personal secretary for some time > > > and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep > > > meaning. He just films weird images that he sees > > > in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, > > > either. > > > > And therefore, they cannot possibly have deep inner > > meaning to anybody else? > > > > Or is it possible that the "weird images that he sees > > in his head" have the effect of triggering deep inner > > meaning in (some of) those who watch the images on > > film? > > > > Peter sees enough meaning in "Mulholland Drive" to > > find it very disturbing, apparently because the > > images echo the emotional turmoil of some of his > > patients, and he's not comfortable with seeing > > their anguish portrayed on screen for entertainment > > or even artistic purposes. > > > > Lynch's images don't trigger any "deep inner meaning" > > for you, which is fine; they don't for me either. But I > > don't assume that because *I* don't see deep inner > > meaning, therefore those who claim to do so are just > > pretending. Nor do I consider Lynch "self-indulgent" > > for not presenting them in a way that I find > > meaningful. After all, if they have no meaning for > > Lynch, *he'd* be pretending if he tried to impose > > some "deep inner meaning" on the images. > > > > It seems that you feel Lynch has no justification for > > putting his images on film if he can't figure out some > > way to arrange them that convinces you they are > > actually meaningful to him. > > > > (And one has to wonder if you would be quite so > > dismissive if Lynch had no association with TM, but > > that's a different issue, although if you decide to > > respond to this post, that's the only one you'll > > deign to comment on.) > > I find David Lynch boring. I find you boring. > End of story. Standard translation: Having to think outside his fantasies makes Barry's head hurt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > > > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > > > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > > > disturbing crap. > > > > I would replace "disturbing" with "self-indulgent," > > but other than that I agree completely. > > > > > Why people think he is some kind of genius is beyond > > > me. > > > > Because they can't figure it out, and think that it > > has some deep inner meaning. As far as I can tell, > > both from watching his films and from knowing the > > woman who was his personal secretary for some time > > and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep > > meaning. He just films weird images that he sees > > in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, > > either. > > And therefore, they cannot possibly have deep inner > meaning to anybody else? > > Or is it possible that the "weird images that he sees > in his head" have the effect of triggering deep inner > meaning in (some of) those who watch the images on > film? > > Peter sees enough meaning in "Mulholland Drive" to > find it very disturbing, apparently because the > images echo the emotional turmoil of some of his > patients, and he's not comfortable with seeing > their anguish portrayed on screen for entertainment > or even artistic purposes. > > Lynch's images don't trigger any "deep inner meaning" > for you, which is fine; they don't for me either. But I > don't assume that because *I* don't see deep inner > meaning, therefore those who claim to do so are just > pretending. Nor do I consider Lynch "self-indulgent" > for not presenting them in a way that I find > meaningful. After all, if they have no meaning for > Lynch, *he'd* be pretending if he tried to impose > some "deep inner meaning" on the images. > > It seems that you feel Lynch has no justification for > putting his images on film if he can't figure out some > way to arrange them that convinces you they are > actually meaningful to him. > > (And one has to wonder if you would be quite so > dismissive if Lynch had no association with TM, but > that's a different issue, although if you decide to > respond to this post, that's the only one you'll > deign to comment on.) I find David Lynch boring. I find you boring. End of story.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:00 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > And, perhaps even more significantly, he says all > > Lynch's work "expresses such emotional anguish and > > such deep confusion and conflict," apparently > > believing it is Lynch himself who is in emotional > > anguish, confusion, and conflict, when just about > > everything written about Lynch (at least that I've > > read) shows him to be pretty much at peace with > > himself. > > > One of the first things I observe or listen to in determining whether > someone's psychophysiology and bioenergy are balanced or unbalanced is > their voice. Shortly after my siddhis course an older female relative of mine told me during a phone call I had a handsome voice. I've noticed that after I occasionally do YF, my voice becomes deeper and softer for a while, but then rather quickly returns to my usual fairly strained, tense and broken voice. I wish I could do YF more regularly, but the "price" still seems to be too high. (Irregular heart beats, flat feeling, and stuff...) In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and > IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes > his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything > that tweaks or increases vata-dosha. Hyooge(?) amounts of coffee and cigarettes? :)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. > Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his > peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on > meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that > science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. LMAO!! (BTW, it's "waxes eloquent," not "eloquently." "Waxes" is synonymous with "becomes," not "speaks.")
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 1, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: This is a special instance of the intentional fallacy. The artist is sick, therefore his art is also sick. You'd have to show that in addition to stating that. Beethoven was deaf, but there is no indication that his music was written by someone who was tone deaf. No, it's not. I don't think you are getting the ayurvedic implications or explanation. The Beethoven analogy is a bad one since not only do we not know any detail of Beethoven ayurvedically, nor do we know, per the example given with DL, the "quality" of his voice. Note, I never said he was "sick". I'm not going into Ayurvedic theory, otherwise it'd be understood. I realize there are some here who will be familiar and some who won't. If the vayus are deranged, then so is prana, if prana is affected, then so is mind, if mind is affected, so is the persons way of interacting with the world. So therefore, his artistic expression in the world are modified by the underlying derangement. This would be one ayurvedic interpretation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
This is a special instance of the intentional fallacy. The artist is sick, therefore his art is also sick. You'd have to show that in addition to stating that. Beethoven was deaf, but there is no indication that his music was written by someone who was tone deaf. Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:00 PM, authfriend wrote: And, perhaps even more significantly, he says all Lynch's work "expresses such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and conflict," apparently believing it is Lynch himself who is in emotional anguish, confusion, and conflict, when just about everything written about Lynch (at least that I've read) shows him to be pretty much at peace with himself. One of the first things I observe or listen to in determining whether someone's psychophysiology and bioenergy are balanced or unbalanced is their voice. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything that tweaks or increases vata-dosha. Since this style of diagnosis is not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly expensive). But his voice even still is like nails on a chalkboard if I listen too closely. I can see how his creative process seems slanted by a parallel derangement. But one does hope he continues to heal. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:00 PM, authfriend wrote: And, perhaps even more significantly, he says all Lynch's work "expresses such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and conflict," apparently believing it is Lynch himself who is in emotional anguish, confusion, and conflict, when just about everything written about Lynch (at least that I've read) shows him to be pretty much at peace with himself. One of the first things I observe or listen to in determining whether someone's psychophysiology and bioenergy are balanced or unbalanced is their voice. In Lynch there are clear signs of vata derangement and IMO, very likely, an underlying yogic disorder. This probably precedes his involvement in TM, but would certainly be exacerbated by anything that tweaks or increases vata-dosha. Since this style of diagnosis is not really part of the western mainstream practice (i.e. as in Dr. Pete's practice) it would not even be acknowledged by most of his peers. But make no mistake, Ayurveda waxes quite eloquently on meditational disorders, which is still a part of training in that science. The quaver in Lynch's voice IMO is a meditational disorder. I will say one thing, it does seem to have improved somewhat over the years. He's probably doing ongoing PK thru the movement, which provides an excellent level of care and service (although exorbitantly expensive). But his voice even still is like nails on a chalkboard if I listen too closely. I can see how his creative process seems slanted by a parallel derangement. But one does hope he continues to heal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > > disturbing crap. > > I would replace "disturbing" with "self-indulgent," > but other than that I agree completely. > > > Why people think he is some kind of genius is beyond > > me. > > Because they can't figure it out, and think that it > has some deep inner meaning. As far as I can tell, > both from watching his films and from knowing the > woman who was his personal secretary for some time > and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep > meaning. He just films weird images that he sees > in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, > either. And therefore, they cannot possibly have deep inner meaning to anybody else? Or is it possible that the "weird images that he sees in his head" have the effect of triggering deep inner meaning in (some of) those who watch the images on film? Peter sees enough meaning in "Mulholland Drive" to find it very disturbing, apparently because the images echo the emotional turmoil of some of his patients, and he's not comfortable with seeing their anguish portrayed on screen for entertainment or even artistic purposes. Lynch's images don't trigger any "deep inner meaning" for you, which is fine; they don't for me either. But I don't assume that because *I* don't see deep inner meaning, therefore those who claim to do so are just pretending. Nor do I consider Lynch "self-indulgent" for not presenting them in a way that I find meaningful. After all, if they have no meaning for Lynch, *he'd* be pretending if he tried to impose some "deep inner meaning" on the images. It seems that you feel Lynch has no justification for putting his images on film if he can't figure out some way to arrange them that convinces you they are actually meaningful to him. (And one has to wonder if you would be quite so dismissive if Lynch had no association with TM, but that's a different issue, although if you decide to respond to this post, that's the only one you'll deign to comment on.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would state your last sentence differently, "The critic has to sling more bullshit than the artist to hide the fact that he doesn't have any creative ideas of his own." :-) A person slinging bullshit is not generally regarded as a competent critic, but if you mean that criticism is a creative art, then you very much have a point. In that case, however, your statement is self-contradictory. You could be right that Lynch is merely self-indulgent. I have not made a study of his films, and so I wouldn't make that judgment. I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy. As for the rest of your post, it is merely a restatement of what I've called the fallacy of authorial intention. A critic can certainly project brilliance into a piece of self-indulgent crap, but it would be difficult to make a coherent statement out of that, a statement arguing his case in such a way that a reader may be guided to see the same brilliance. That is the critic's task. Seeing or "projecting" brilliance is only the beginning. When Trinity tells us what she saw in the film, she is not merely yelling "Yeah, great film!!" She is giving us the beginnings of a coherent critical statement. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I can tell, > both from watching his films and from knowing the > woman who was his personal secretary for some time > and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep > meaning. He just films weird images that he sees > in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, > either. > > In my business this is called the "fallacy of authorial > intention." Lynch can be a great artist without being a > great critic of his own work. The critic needs to see > more deeply than the artist needs to see. I would state your last sentence differently, "The critic has to sling more bullshit than the artist to hide the fact that he doesn't have any creative ideas of his own." :-) Someone projecting brilliance *into* Lynch's films doesn't make them brilliant. I've heard too much about the dude to ever buy that one. He may be a nice guy, and he certainly seems to want to do something nice for people by trying to find ways to get them to learn TM *in spite of* the TM movement, but for me his films, with only a couple of exceptions, are all about self indulgence. Self indulgence doth not an artist make. It's the same thing we see in those who feel that *their* subjec- tive experiences are better than other people's subjective experiences. But you can like his movies if you want. All I'm saying is that I don't.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As far as I can tell, both from watching his films and from knowing the woman who was his personal secretary for some time and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep meaning. He just films weird images that he sees in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, either. In my business this is called the "fallacy of authorial intention." Lynch can be a great artist without being a great critic of his own work. The critic needs to see more deeply than the artist needs to see. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote: > > > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > > disturbing crap. > > I would replace "disturbing" with "self-indulgent," > but other than that I agree completely. > > > Why people think he is some kind of genius is beyond > > me. > > Because they can't figure it out, and think that it > has some deep inner meaning. As far as I can tell, > both from watching his films and from knowing the > woman who was his personal secretary for some time > and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep > meaning. He just films weird images that he sees > in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, > either. I will give Mulholland Drive one thumbs-up, however -- it made Naomi Watts famous. It was a great role for her, allowing her to show off a wide breadth of talent in one film (no matter how bad the film itself was), and she's been working steadily ever since, and doing great work at that. Hell, she was even good in King Kong.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > disturbing crap. I would replace "disturbing" with "self-indulgent," but other than that I agree completely. > Why people think he is some kind of genius is beyond > me. Because they can't figure it out, and think that it has some deep inner meaning. As far as I can tell, both from watching his films and from knowing the woman who was his personal secretary for some time and hearing her stories, there *isn't* any deep meaning. He just films weird images that he sees in his head. They don't mean anything to *him*, either.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind of > genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work expresses > such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > conflict. These are places i usually only visit with > my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > psychic hells is beyond me. Often--if not always--reactions to an artist's work say far more about the person reacting than about the work itself, or about the artist. Peter finds it upsetting to see the emotional anguish of his most disturbed clients' inner lives portrayed on screen. That's understandable, just as it's understandable that folks who don't have to interact intensely on a personal basis with disturbed people-- and who don't bear the daunting responsibility of helping them--can see such anguish portrayed on screen with more equanimity and appreciate the artistic quality of the portrayal. The resonance with Peter's interaction with his patients gets in the way of his ability to see the film as art. That's also understandable. What's a little odd is that Peter doesn't seem to realize that this is what's happening, or why it wouldn't be the case for those who aren't in the profession of treating disturbed people. He can't see how anybody would consider Lynch's work to be of artistic value. It's almost as though Peter's ability to empathize with others is limited to those who are disturbed. And, perhaps even more significantly, he says all Lynch's work "expresses such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and conflict," apparently believing it is Lynch himself who is in emotional anguish, confusion, and conflict, when just about everything written about Lynch (at least that I've read) shows him to be pretty much at peace with himself.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd rather drive carpet tacks into my eyes. (Hey, good scene for a new Lynch movie) Well, if such horror as this were all there is to a Lynch movie, then, truly, it would not be art. There are plenty of movies around that do nothing more than show such horror. Like pornography, they appeal only to base instincts, and art always does more than this. Like I said, the critic seems himself. -- Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- shempmcgurk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if > I > > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece > of > > disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind > of > > genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work > expresses > > such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > > conflict. These are places i usually only visit > with > > my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > > psychic hells is beyond me. And this is the guy > who is > > the elite spokes person for the TMO. Oy vay! Do > the > > Rajas get special screening of his works? > > > You had to have liked the "This bed is big enough > for the two of us > scene", right? I mean what's not to like there... > > Tell you what you should do: rent the two-disc DVD > of "Inland Empire" > and see not only the whole 3 1/2 hour movie but also > the 2 hour > section of the extras called "Other things that > happened" (or > something like that). This will ensure that you > will never, ever see > a David Lynch movie again. > > You'll also enjoy David cooking Quinoa with Brocolli > in the Extras. I'd rather drive carpet tacks into my eyes. (Hey, good scene for a new Lynch movie) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > __ > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > > Make Yahoo! your homepage. > > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
This is a truly beautiful glimpse into what that movie is about. Thanks for posting it. a t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The appropriate point of this work was that the artist does not care whether he is portraying beautiful life or ugly life. It is all worthy of his attention, his talent, and his inspiration. > > No art critic would call a work of art "crap" just because the subject matter is something a psychologist would only visit with his most disturbed clients. Whether or not it is crap does not depend on the subject matter, but on the way he portrays it. Great points Angela. I must out myself that I saw Mulholland Drive 2 or 3 times and really liked it. I liked it because its mysterious not just a sraight forward story, most of which you can calculate yourself, and I liked it for the imagery. For example, right after the lesbian scene, when they go to the magic theater, the whole thing is full of spiritual meaning. The artists perform obviously singing, but as one singer faints, you see that the voice is coming from a tape. So everything is just an illusion, a theater play, the artists seemingly playing are just lip-synchronising to a recording. I think this is a very adapt spiritual analogy. The club is called 'silencio' and silence is a key-phrase in that scene. the whole performance is in silence, the music coming from a tape. During that scene the whole story skips, the two girls go through a magic cube into a different space, this being the past or simply an alternate reading of reality, or the actual reality, while the beginning was simply a dream. There are many subplots, many symbolic hints. For example there is a bum in the film, who secretly holds all the strings, the persons in power obviously just being puppets in the hands of a strange being, obviously powerless in the ordinary sense. I got reminded of the Avadhuts, who live on streets, careless about their outer appearance but thoroughly enlightened. In this film things are not as they seem to be, there are layers of reality, one persons dream is another persons reality and vice versa. In the second half of the film, the two girls, Betty and Rita basically swap roles. Betty being the succesfull and Rita the shy one in the first half, in the second half Rita has the success and Betty is depressed. The whole film can also be seen as commenting on the illussiory glamour and the shallowness of Hollywood. So, yes, I liked this grap, and I am aware that I'm one of the few ones, in my immediate surrounding and obviously here. But I don't care, I see deep meaning in it, and its just not this predictable story you usually get. I think he David Lynch is a genius, and I liked the way he dealt with this situation in Berlin, which was truely horrible, with this ego-maniac Schiffgens. That he is in a leading position in the movement gives me hope. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
Yes, but remember a great artist is the totality of all there is. So once that's pointed out, what is there to say? A great deal, as it turns out, since there is still the uniqueness of who he is in a particular time and place since, as Shakespeare says, inspiration must take a local name and habitation. How do we get from that uniqueness to the universality of vision? And to see that an artist is the totality of all there is takes a critic who sees at least as deeply. It is equally true that a critic sees only himself. It took a hundred years before there was anyone who could see deeply enough to appreciate William Blake, for instance. One has to see past the inevitable strangeness of the surface level of all truly original art. mrfishey2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But the subject matter per se is hardly ever the issue. .. The artist is the subject matter, always. It is the only issue. . Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But the subject matter per se is hardly ever the issue. .. The artist is the subject matter, always. It is the only issue. .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". ... I don't believe many critic's know where to place Lynch's formula of obscurity = meaning. So open are the number of possible of interpretations of his films, that there is nothing they can't mean. I respect his practice of an unquestioned faith in the contemporary model of embodiment over representation. I remember seeing his film 6 Men Throwing Up (title?) when I was in graduate school. As remember it had a kind of cartoon level sickness. Students are a good audience for that kind of work. When mimetic fidelity takes its final curtain, helping it off-stage is the usually the belief in theoretical accountability. From here, the drooling parade of vacuity fathered Andy Warhol becames unavoidable. Although a Warhol fan, I think he set the table for the cultural virus of lowered expectations. I think Lynch's work shows the deeper cultural rupture between critical foundations and straight anecdotal accounts. David's work usually falls into the later, a kind of "here's what it looks like you decide" mentality. The favored stance of a critic not wishing to ruffle exoskeleton of finance. In the pain caused by a total loss of personal origins, I would imagine the Rajas probably have most of David's work committed to memory. Like the book-walkers in Fahrenheit 451 ...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I remember an essay or a talk by MMY that began with the words, "Beautiful > life, ugly >life." If any of you remember it or have a copy of it, I sure would love to >see the whole >thing again. The appropriate point of this work was that the artist does not >care whether >he is portraying beautiful life or ugly life. It is all worthy of his >attention, his talent, and >his inspiration. > > No art critic would call a work of art "crap" just because the subject matter > is something >a psychologist would only visit with his most disturbed clients. Whether or >not it is crap >does not depend on the subject matter, but on the way he portrays it. Is it >honest? Is it >original in the sense that it comes from the depth of all origin? Does it >have authority? >Does it have universality? What are the artistic means he chooses to express >what he >wishes to express? Are the means appropriate to his subject matter? > > But the subject matter per se is hardly ever the issue. > ..yet, in addition to meeting the criteria related to the WAY Lynch portrays the Subject Matter of his films, consistency of subject matter, or theme, of a body of work is the real hook upon which he. as an artist. hangs his hat, creates a following, establishes his reputation, gains him many accolades Lynch shines light onto dark aspects of the culture, in a manner that doesn't cause the roaches to scatter when illuminated. He captures brilliantly the most creative expressions of eccentrics among us. Remember Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet ( 1986 ), singing the Roy Orbison song "Sandman" ? Lynch risks his colleagues' scorn with his most recent works, which illuminate the dark realities of the culture of film-making- prostitution as a pre-requisite to stardom. Lynch juxtaposes innocence and idealism of the young actor with prostitutional realities, and the resultant despair and eventual self-snuffing act to escape the culture. By taking such risks, Lynch earns huge respect. I wonder what his light will illuminate next. -Mainstream > >Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just spent > >2 hours watching >>David Lynch's > >"Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > >can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > >disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind of > >genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work expresses > >such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > >conflict. These are places i usually only visit with > >my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > >psychic hells is beyond me. And this is the guy who is > >the elite spokes person for the TMO. Oy vay! Do the > >Rajas get special screening of his works? > >__
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I remember an essay or a talk by MMY that began with the words, "Beautiful > life, ugly life." If any of you remember it or have a copy of it, I sure would love to see the whole thing again. The appropriate point of this work was that the artist does not care whether he is portraying beautiful life or ugly life. It is all worthy of his attention, his talent, and his inspiration. > > No art critic would call a work of art "crap" just because the subject matter > is something a psychologist would only visit with his most disturbed clients. Whether or not it is crap does not depend on the subject matter, but on the way he portrays it. Is it honest? Is it original in the sense that it comes from the depth of all origin? Does it have authority? Does it have universality? What are the artistic means he chooses to express what he wishes to express? Are the means appropriate to his subject matter? > > But the subject matter per se is hardly ever the issue. > ...yet, in addition to meeting the criteria related to the WAY Lynch portrays the Subject Matter of his films, consistency of subject matter, or theme, of a body of work is the real hook upon which he. as an artist. hangs his hat, creates a following, establishes his reputation, gains him many accolades Lynch shines light onto dark aspects of the culture, in a manner that doesn't cause the roaches to scatter when illuminated. He captures brilliantly the most creative expressions of eccentrics among us. Remember Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet ( 1986 ), singing the Roy Orbison song "Sandman" ? Lynch risks his colleagues' scorn with his most recent works, which illuminate the dark realities of the culture of film-making- prostitution as a pre-requisite to stardom. Lynch juxtaposes innocence and idealism of the young actor with prostitutional realities, and the resultant despair and eventual self-snuffing act to escape the culture. By taking such risks, Lynch earns huge respect. I wonder what his light will illuminate next. -Mainstream > Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I just spent 2 > hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind of > genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work expresses > such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > conflict. These are places i usually only visit with > my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > psychic hells is beyond me. And this is the guy who is > the elite spokes person for the TMO. Oy vay! Do the > Rajas get special screening of his works? > > __ > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > Make Yahoo! your homepage. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The appropriate point of this work was that the artist does not care whether he is portraying beautiful life or ugly life. It is all worthy of his attention, his talent, and his inspiration. > > No art critic would call a work of art "crap" just because the subject matter is something a psychologist would only visit with his most disturbed clients. Whether or not it is crap does not depend on the subject matter, but on the way he portrays it. Great points Angela. I must out myself that I saw Mulholland Drive 2 or 3 times and really liked it. I liked it because its mysterious not just a sraight forward story, most of which you can calculate yourself, and I liked it for the imagery. For example, right after the lesbian scene, when they go to the magic theater, the whole thing is full of spiritual meaning. The artists perform obviously singing, but as one singer faints, you see that the voice is coming from a tape. So everything is just an illusion, a theater play, the artists seemingly playing are just lip-synchronising to a recording. I think this is a very adapt spiritual analogy. The club is called 'silencio' and silence is a key-phrase in that scene. the whole performance is in silence, the music coming from a tape. During that scene the whole story skips, the two girls go through a magic cube into a different space, this being the past or simply an alternate reading of reality, or the actual reality, while the beginning was simply a dream. There are many subplots, many symbolic hints. For example there is a bum in the film, who secretly holds all the strings, the persons in power obviously just being puppets in the hands of a strange being, obviously powerless in the ordinary sense. I got reminded of the Avadhuts, who live on streets, careless about their outer appearance but thoroughly enlightened. In this film things are not as they seem to be, there are layers of reality, one persons dream is another persons reality and vice versa. In the second half of the film, the two girls, Betty and Rita basically swap roles. Betty being the succesfull and Rita the shy one in the first half, in the second half Rita has the success and Betty is depressed. The whole film can also be seen as commenting on the illussiory glamour and the shallowness of Hollywood. So, yes, I liked this grap, and I am aware that I'm one of the few ones, in my immediate surrounding and obviously here. But I don't care, I see deep meaning in it, and its just not this predictable story you usually get. I think he David Lynch is a genius, and I liked the way he dealt with this situation in Berlin, which was truely horrible, with this ego-maniac Schiffgens. That he is in a leading position in the movement gives me hope.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mulholland Drive
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just spent 2 hours watching David Lynch's > "Mulholland Drive". I thought, okay, let me see if I > can actually enjoy one of his films. What a piece of > disturbing crap. Why people think he is some kind of > genius is beyond me. Almost all of his work expresses > such emotional anguish and such deep confusion and > conflict. These are places i usually only visit with > my most disturbed clients. Why he glorifies these > psychic hells is beyond me. And this is the guy who is > the elite spokes person for the TMO. Oy vay! Do the > Rajas get special screening of his works? You had to have liked the "This bed is big enough for the two of us scene", right? I mean what's not to like there... Tell you what you should do: rent the two-disc DVD of "Inland Empire" and see not only the whole 3 1/2 hour movie but also the 2 hour section of the extras called "Other things that happened" (or something like that). This will ensure that you will never, ever see a David Lynch movie again. You'll also enjoy David cooking Quinoa with Brocolli in the Extras. > > > > __ __ > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. > Make Yahoo! your homepage. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
