 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 194 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614070 Today 14 Topics 127541 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just purchased this yesterday. I watched first 10 mins then fell asleep. Is it really any good?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Watch it and fucking find out?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its lynch, what do YOU think? of course its good. its funny, disturbing, amazing visually, spacial, dreamy, and everythign else id ever come to expect from lynch. youve already bought it, so what are you waiting for?? WATCH THE THING ALREADY |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i just bought the huge lynch.net version for my girlfriend... i love that movie... i have this whole theory about it that i won't explain now... but i will throw out the thesis that DJ Spooky's album Songs of a Dead Dreamer is a response to ERaserhead |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i just watched it a couple days ago. i LOVE it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
god I hated eraserhead... what a fucking dull, boring, lame movie. I like david lynchs stuff a lot, but this movie was so boring, I saw it in the theatre at the University in my city here and it was sooo boring, I almost wanted to leave, but didnt cause I had friends who wanted to stay, but they didnt like it either. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think lynch is overrated. only good thing is he's an 'author', so he's got a specific style. eraserhead is ok |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He's definitely an acquired taste... and i'd agree with you that a lot of people probably don't like him for the right reasons... (if there is such a thing as liking something for the wrong reasons)... so i can totally understand why people would dislike him... but i love his work... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, it's not idm, pi is |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
huh? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
think about it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i officially hate this thread now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you saying that david lynch's film style is not equivalent to idm, but darren aronofsky's Pi is... ? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well i have to go to bed... but if you are saying what i think you are saying... well yes pi is great and all... but the slick-style of Pi works very rarely... most of the time this kind of thing comes out insipid (Pi, being a rare, pleasant exception)... as in Snatch, or Run Lola Run... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes for me pi catches the idm feel, pretty pseudo scientic but great to watch/ or listen too mysterious, hinting to 'more' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Eraserhead = excellent nightmare movie |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i would say that Eraserhead is very mysterious/evocative... as is most of Lynch's work... but that's just me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
rrgh. what is eraserhead about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
according to lynch, its about him being a single father in philadelphia in the early 70's. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok. seems typical. wonder if that guy is capable of making normal films.. i think the "oooh, look at me! i'm crazy! i can have dirty people and guns both at the same time!" -thing has worn out. Don't get me wrong, I love his films, I just think he should do something new... all the films seem to be about people with identity-problems... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think lynch comes by his subject matter honestly... many of the finest dircetors fixate on the same subject matter for most of their careers... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he is making normal films, in my opinion. theyre much more cerebral and acurate to the minds ability to distort truth and reality than any other films ive seen. he makes what he intuits feels right, not what "makes sense" for the sake of narrow-minded movie goers. hes not TRYING to be weird, in other words... he just does what feels natural. i guess picasso or dali shouldve done some normal paintings too then. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. that depends. how many paintings did they make? surely, it would get boring if they made 50 paintings, and they all looked the same?! as for doing what he thinks is natural, that is impossible in the organized movie-world. there are people who transfer the original script to dialogue and directions, and people who draw the storyboard.. everything is set before you go filming. If you want to do what feels natural (like I and my cousin did when making a music-video for our song, which hasn't been edited yet, but surely will be posted here when it is done), you should do dogme like Lars Von Trier. You give the actors a role, and they act upon it. no script. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Everyone here except tibbar and DeadEight are just idiots... Eraserhead is not just a film - it's an experience, and you have to see it. It's just marvellous. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats a crap attitude. i think none of us are even NEAR qualified to judge dali or picasso's work. or lynch's for that matter. but then i guess thats why people talk a whole lot of smack on him in particular, they dont understand his art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that wasnt directed at you, though it sounds like it. sorry. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, that's ok at first i was a bit confused, but then i realised. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its like that with lynch too. when i saw mullholland in the theatre, it really blew me away. it was so much sensory information, i had a hard time making any sense of it. but after like the second or third watch, i started putting the puzzle together. now, when i watch it, i totally get how it fits together. its very subtly crafted. alot of cymbolism and emotional imagery. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now, THAT is bullshit. no movie has ever been an experience. An experience contains more than visual and aural input. if you think we aren't near qualified to judge their work, I wonder who is. The films and paintings are made for us. They are not made for some cultural elite consisting of four people. The creator of the art is nothing but an interpreter among interpeters. The only reason you would have for claiming that none of us are capable of interpreting their work, would be that none of us understand the entirety of the time we live in, and therefore can not see the invisible norms and rules which guide us. In that case, the only person fit for interpreting ANYTHING AT ALL that comes from this era, is a historian in the future. He will have the full overview of our time (more or less, but at least more than us), and can see the reasons why we did "[action]". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i still don't really understand Mulholland Drive... but i don't mind, because it's probably my all-time favourite films (or one of them, anyway) and i'm just happy to enjoy it without worrying too much about trying to disassemble the complex plot... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but that aside. I still love his films. now. could you tell me what you think Mulholland is about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shut up with your ramblings, fool. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dammit! everyone keeps beating me posting!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no ramblings here. do you really believe you know the reasons for everything you do? the "tell me what you think mulholland is about" was directed at tibbar, as he said he had it puzzled together. i have my own theory, as much as I don't like interpreting things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yoyo? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, one of these days ill take the inititative and write a thesis on it, but in the meantime, ask me what you want to know and ill answer it. im not gonna give a lecture at 5:30 am |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that came off a little nasty, now that i read that back, sorry. it was meant to be funny actually. ask away, anyhow. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
5:30 it's 11:07 here. i don't want to know one particular thing, I want to know what you think it is about. I have my own theory, but I want to see what other people think it is about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok... here goes. *clears mind* there are 2 kinds of dreaming. what lynch does with this film is interweave the 2 into one, showing their similarities, and how people will decieve themselves to avoid shocking and harsh truths. the walls of this construct come down however, when the logic seperating them gets disturbed and things start to bleed onto one another, making the whole situation very confusing and dangerous. the story itself is stuck in some sort of infinity loop. some weird fate binding the characters in their ultimate end, which really only goes back to start all over again. ouroboros, once again. thats the basic gist. its very much about hollywood, and how people's dreams and goals consume them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm.. ok. I was leaning more towards believing that the main character is really a man with memory-loss, induced by some horrible event, and which for some reason believes he is a woman (which would make the lesbians a normal couple). the blue box is his real memory, and when they unlock it, he remembers how his life was (but not that he isn't a woman). when they enter that house earlier in the film, they find a corpse. as there were two people living there in the past, there is no reason to believe there should only be one victim of what had happened. the other one might have survived, only with a memory-loss, and some mental disorder making him believe he is a woman. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the lesbianism is actually very non-sexual in its intent. notice it happens right after the wig thing. it is "rita's" assimilation into betty's persona, which is when things then start REALLY taking a curve for the wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the corpse they find earlier IS betty/diane. remember the ending? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and also: the thing about the persons (actors) being the same in both time periods (memory and not memory), i think has something to do with the fact that you cannot travel back in time, you can only re-enact or remember what has happened before. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right. one thing that might help you assemble the thing is that rita's amnesia and betty's delusions are playing off one another, so the distortion of perspective is at moments coming from BOTH of them at the same time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the corpse they find earlier is one of the persons that used to live in the house. where is the other person? she / he has been thrown out of a car up on mulholland drive with amnesia. that mafia-like guy in the glass-room probably has something to do with it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the blue box is memory. in rita's delusion,because of their union, betty and her are tied together in her mind. thats why betty keeps turning up in rita's memory. all she remembers is after the crash, and looking in that box drops those 2 realities together in a weird messy way. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the woman who is in the apartment is diane selwin, remember? during the second half of the film, the waitress switches nametags, and betty is reffered to as diane (who died in her bed in a violent way). the girl they found IS betty. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, there should definitely be someone else than betty in ritas memory, but rita can't remember who. so she puts betty in there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
damn. these posts are non-sequential. or diane, rather. but you agree that rita is the other person who lived in that house, and because of what she has seen (diane being murdered), she is delusional. (sorry, can't remember who had which name, but the way I tell it, Rita is the main-character (the one i think is really a man), betty is the woman who Rita stays with, Diane (now dead) is who Betty is substituted for when Rita tells the story to Betty, and Camilla is Ritas true name) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
