b,121assigning values to mythical creatures based on how close to being real they were, along with other factors.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Do you guys assign personalities to numbers from 0 to 9? And their relationships with each other? And hierarchies? 0, 2 and 9 running the show, but 1 being the figurehead, 3 and 5 not being trustworthy but very clever, 4 and 5 being very good friends and 2 and 3 being bitter rivals....?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121
b,121Do what? I'm confused. Is this some form of learning aid that passed me by?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I don't think so, more an imagination thing...if it is a learning aid, that part passed me by because I was not a good math student at all.
b,121assigning values to mythical creatures based on how close to being real they were, along with other factors.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121Do you guys assign personalities to numbers from 0 to 9? And their relationships with each other? And hierarchies? 0, 2 and 9 running the show, but 1 being the figurehead, 3 and 5 not being trustworthy but very clever, 4 and 5 being very good friends and 2 and 3 being bitter rivals....?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121
b,121Do what? I'm confused. Is this some form of learning aid that passed me by?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1
b,121
b,121I don't think so, more an imagination thing...if it is a learning aid, that part passed me by because I was not a good math student at all.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121That's amazing, please explain further. b,121b,121b,121Why did you decide numbers need personalties? b,121b,121I've never thought about numbers in this way at all. But I'm a very analytical, logic driven person, I think. So it would be illogical to assign emotions to something purely practical like numbers.
Oh gosh - the crazy lady light has gone off hasn't it?b,121b,121It's not so much that I decided they needed them...it just happened naturally in my head when I looked at them or was writing them. Some of it has to do with how they look, but not really because I know numbers in Farsi and I still feel the same way about each number.
You're not crazy, unless I am too. I not only gave numbers (1-10) personalities, they had genders too. 1,2,3,5,8, & 10 were male, and 4,6,7, & 9 were female.
b,121You're not crazy, unless I am too. I not only gave numbers (1-10) personalities, they had genders too. 1,2,3,5,8, & 10 were male, and 4,6,7, & 9 were female.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121I always thought 1 was a bit of an asshole. He wouldn't date 8 because he had a strict "no fatties" policy.
b,121Oh gosh - the crazy lady light has gone off hasn't it?
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121/font1
font class="small"1Quote:
/font1
h,121
b,121You're not crazy.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121Yer, not at all. Most people would exhibit some for of 'crazy' if you psychoanalysed them. It's pretty natural, and all part of the fascinating way the brain works. b,121b,121b,121For instance, it's interesting that neither of you assigned a gender to 0. It's not a great leap to assign a trait to something that you can in theory objectify, eg. 1, "I have 1 cat, she is female" it's a completely logical connection. But how can you assign any trait to zero, that's essentially the descriptor of a void.
I think it's more that I see zero as beyond gender. Not so much that it is a void but as a circle, it is all-encompassing. Every time the sequence reaches its limit - 9, 19 , 29...., it has to go back to zero: 10, 20, 30. And that's why zero runs things. I'm not really articulating it properly and I'm not into numerolgy or a religious person - zero is not "god" like someone else I had this conversation with suggested. It's just this near-inate thing about how I look at numbers. I don't do this with colours by the way.
b,121I think it's more that I see zero as beyond gender. Not so much that it is a void but as a circle, it is all-encompassing. Every time the sequence reaches its limit - 9, 19 , 29...., it has to go back to zero: 10, 20, 30. And that's why zero runs things. I'm not really articulating it properly and I'm not into numerolgy or a religious person - zero is not "god" like someone else I had this conversation with suggested. It's just this near-inate thing about how I look at numbers. I don't do this with colours by the way.
b,121
b,121
h,121
font class="post"1b,121b,121b,121The closest I can describe my early thoughts on zero is to recall the character Ismael Retzinsky from Fanny and Alexander.
This thraed has not aged well in terms of all the gibberish code floating around up there, but I cannot wait to see teh 4K issue in a theatre. Not clear when it'll play in Toronto, but I'm expecting to finally figure it out this time. (j/k)
David Lynch is one of the surrealist directors that I hate the most. That being said I thought Eraserhead, elephant man and Mullholland drive were excellent compelling films. b,121b,121Mullholland drive made 100% sense to me, until the film switched over. Then it left me thinking WTF until the end of the film, and made me question understanding any of the film. Probably was the only film that has ever done that. It begs for being rewatched, and I think after multiple viewings that you gain a full understanding of where the narrative is trying to explain. b,121b,121Blue velvet and lost highway are super overrated. b,121b,121I still haven't seen inland empire yet, but I'll probably catch it on rental. b,121b,121I still wish jodorowsky would've directed dune. b,121b,121- spidey
I guess, 9 years later I can safely say that I definitely don't hate David Lynch as much as I did back then.
I think it's entirely human to feel this incessant desire to want to organize information in your head. For example 999999999999999999999999 is much more satisfying then 28-7418-2#9C74274-821787874878f. I think the problem most people in America have with understanding complicated films is that they are naturally trying to figure out a Beginning, Middle, End and possibly even a moral deep meaning.
The reality is that nature is not designed to give you a satisfying experience. Things typically just happen, and it's up to you to find your own meaning to it. I noticed that most directors that focus on the language of visuals have understood that compelling art is not necessarily about the story you are telling. If you think deeply about it, leaving things up to your interpretation is the medium that all great creators work. Chefs, Architects, Engineers, Writers, Picasso, Salvador Dali, Fellini, Houdini, God. I don't think that Lynch himself couldn't even begin to imagine the depths of what people see in his films. I find it commendable that in his art he never intentionally tries to manipulate you into how to think or feel.
That's the beauty of this Mulholland Drive, and all of his films. It's intentionally grotesque, disjointed and some parts just feel wrong, but there are some deeply memorable moments that somehow resonate with you on some level and somehow wind up deep into this mental visual library of every film you've ever watched. Like the strange guy behind the trash can, baby wants Blue Velvet, the unexplained blue cube in the handbag, Bill Pullman going nuts on the sax, Strange baby with the measles dying. David Lynch works in this magic realm of unsettling minutiae hidden deep within your mind that you didn't even know existed.
The entire movie felt like one of my dreams; at first there seems to be some kind of narrative, or at least I have confidence in where things are going, but slowly things make less and less sense, until I wake up with memories of unconnected scenes. I suppose Lynch should be admired for what he's done with this film, but I feel no urge to return and make sense of it. It looked great but left me feeling slightly nauseous.
I don't think I've revisited it (or any Lynch) since originally posting in this thread. I still adore him though. People always overlook how funny his films are - there's a wicked sense of humour mixed in with all the dream/nightmare like antics.
I am hyped and scared as fuck for the new Twin Peaks though. I have no idea what I would consider a success at this point. But I'm hoping for more Fire Walk With Me and less second series sitcom shit.
Yes! There is real, dry, humour in there. The lady with the log etc. He can't keep up the darkness incessantly.
..."My log does not judge..."
I had a spare week last week to watch the entire Twin Peak series back to back topped off with Fire Walk With Me...
The tone throughout was really weird in that it could go from 'Twilight Zone' to cheesy 'Days of our Lives' pastiche in a single episode (possibly within one scene). But yeah the humour was present throughout.
It's actually the first time I've watched a tv series all the way through and I am a bit young to have gotten it first time around. But overall it was compelling but definitely lost steam once they solved the murder.
Fire Walk With Me seems to be the kind of thing Lynch would have done if he hadn't been constrained by the limits of television. I'm not sure it would work as a stand alone film without prior knowledge of the series. Anyone here seen it but not the series? Any thoughts?
I think I saw Mulholland Drive a couple years ago, I only watch movies on my dvr years after they were in theaters. I remember being pretty confused afterwards, the only other Lynch movie I had seen before was Dune. Then I looked at his imdb page and it looks like Dune was the exception where he sold out and lost control. Anyway, i just finished watching Warcraft and Independence Day Resurgence this week.
That's the beauty of this Mulholland Drive, and all of his films. It's intentionally grotesque, disjointed and some parts just feel wrong, but there are some deeply memorable moments that somehow resonate with you on some level and somehow wind up deep into this mental visual library of every film you've ever watched. Like the strange guy behind the trash can, baby wants Blue Velvet, the unexplained blue cube in the handbag, Bill Pullman going nuts on the sax, Strange baby with the measles dying. David Lynch works in this magic realm of unsettling minutiae hidden deep within your mind that you didn't even know existed.
- spidey
Inland Empire was torture, though, right? (Did you ever see it, Spidey?) Did anyone here enjoy watching it? Redeeming qualities?
I can't get with Mulholland Drive. Watched it in film school with a bunch of smart, like-minded people a few years after it came out, and everybody seemed blown away but me. This was part of a set of classes where we also watched the hardest-of-the-hard avant-garde stuff. I watched a whole >1hour screening of blinking solid colors onscreen with no soundtrack that were created by exposing film cans to daylight with no camera and then putting them through a broken digital-transfer machine, and took notes at the Q&A like "she says 'the space between you and the person behind you in the ATM line is a non-space space' (what)" so it's not like I'm some rube who can't cope with a bit of surreality/disjointed plot and images. I don't think I misunderstand the kind of effect Lynch's thing is supposed to have on me but in that film especially it just did nothing for me. So it's just weird to me that this is everybody's favorite highbrow art film given the occasionally seriously mindblowing stuff that I saw around that time. The very idea of people spending loads of time trying to string together the plot into a cohesive whole bruns my ass. Even most fans of the movie must agree that's missing the point. Plus the dude was paid to come to universities and film schools and refused to talk about filmmaking and instead promoted his transcendental meditation shit. Transcend my fist in your teeth.
I can't get with Mulholland Drive. Watched it in film school with a bunch of smart, like-minded people a few years after it came out, and everybody seemed blown away but me. This was part of a set of classes where we also watched the hardest-of-the-hard avant-garde stuff. I watched a whole >1hour screening of blinking solid colors onscreen with no soundtrack that were created by exposing film cans to daylight with no camera and then putting them through a broken digital-transfer machine, and took notes at the Q&A like "she says 'the space between you and the person behind you in the ATM line is a non-space space' (what)" so it's not like I'm some rube who can't cope with a bit of surreality/disjointed plot and images. I don't think I misunderstand the kind of effect Lynch's thing is supposed to have on me but in that film especially it just did nothing for me. So it's just weird to me that this is everybody's favorite highbrow art film given the occasionally seriously mindblowing stuff that I saw around that time. The very idea of people spending loads of time trying to string together the plot into a cohesive whole bruns my ass. Even most fans of the movie must agree that's missing the point. Plus the dude was paid to come to universities and film schools and refused to talk about filmmaking and instead promoted his transcendental meditation shit. Transcend my fist in your teeth.
I'm not expecting a clear meaning from Lynch's hallucinatory films, but many of them click with me in spite of that. I've kinda hated and kinda loved this particular one over the years.
Yeah, I saw him "discuss" Inland Empire when it dropped, in LA - it began with an organ performance of incidental music, and he was cagey as f*ck about meaning. I think that's the way he wants it to be, and that's fine.
I can't get with Mulholland Drive. Watched it in film school with a bunch of smart, like-minded people a few years after it came out, and everybody seemed blown away but me. This was part of a set of classes where we also watched the hardest-of-the-hard avant-garde stuff. I watched a whole >1hour screening of blinking solid colors onscreen with no soundtrack that were created by exposing film cans to daylight with no camera and then putting them through a broken digital-transfer machine, and took notes at the Q&A like "she says 'the space between you and the person behind you in the ATM line is a non-space space' (what)" so it's not like I'm some rube who can't cope with a bit of surreality/disjointed plot and images. I don't think I misunderstand the kind of effect Lynch's thing is supposed to have on me but in that film especially it just did nothing for me. So it's just weird to me that this is everybody's favorite highbrow art film given the occasionally seriously mindblowing stuff that I saw around that time. The very idea of people spending loads of time trying to string together the plot into a cohesive whole bruns my ass. Even most fans of the movie must agree that's missing the point. Plus the dude was paid to come to universities and film schools and refused to talk about filmmaking and instead promoted his transcendental meditation shit. Transcend my fist in your teeth.
I'm not expecting a clear meaning from Lynch's hallucinatory films, but many of them click with me in spite of that. I've kinda hated and kinda loved this particular one over the years.
Yeah, I saw him "discuss" Inland Empire when it dropped, in LA - it began with an organ performance of incidental music, and he was cagey as f*ck about meaning. I think that's the way he wants it to be, and that's fine.
Oh yeah, I'd never expect a maker of films like that to want to, or even be able to, talk about the meanings behind their film. It's clear he's looking for dream logic and iconic imagery that evokes a tone and so on and the meanings should resonate differently with different people. But the guy was coming to film schools where people were learning how to MAKE films, and refusing to talk about filmmaking. It was galling because the guy would have no platform at all if he wasn't a filmmaker.
I'm curious - what did Inland Empire do that Mulholland Drive didn't, and vice-versa, to make you like one and not the other?
klezmer electro-thug beats said: I watched a whole >1hour screening of blinking solid colors onscreen with no soundtrack that were created by exposing film cans to daylight with no camera and then putting them through a broken digital-transfer machine, and took notes at the Q&A like "she says 'the space between you and the person behind you in the ATM line is a non-space space' (what)" so it's not like I'm some rube who can't cope with a bit of surreality/disjointed plot and images.
you mean you don't ride for 1960s structuralist cinema??????
I can't get with Mulholland Drive. Watched it in film school with a bunch of smart, like-minded people a few years after it came out, and everybody seemed blown away but me. This was part of a set of classes where we also watched the hardest-of-the-hard avant-garde stuff. I watched a whole >1hour screening of blinking solid colors onscreen with no soundtrack that were created by exposing film cans to daylight with no camera and then putting them through a broken digital-transfer machine, and took notes at the Q&A like "she says 'the space between you and the person behind you in the ATM line is a non-space space' (what)" so it's not like I'm some rube who can't cope with a bit of surreality/disjointed plot and images. I don't think I misunderstand the kind of effect Lynch's thing is supposed to have on me but in that film especially it just did nothing for me. So it's just weird to me that this is everybody's favorite highbrow art film given the occasionally seriously mindblowing stuff that I saw around that time. The very idea of people spending loads of time trying to string together the plot into a cohesive whole bruns my ass. Even most fans of the movie must agree that's missing the point. Plus the dude was paid to come to universities and film schools and refused to talk about filmmaking and instead promoted his transcendental meditation shit. Transcend my fist in your teeth.
I'm not expecting a clear meaning from Lynch's hallucinatory films, but many of them click with me in spite of that. I've kinda hated and kinda loved this particular one over the years.
Yeah, I saw him "discuss" Inland Empire when it dropped, in LA - it began with an organ performance of incidental music, and he was cagey as f*ck about meaning. I think that's the way he wants it to be, and that's fine.
Oh yeah, I'd never expect a maker of films like that to want to, or even be able to, talk about the meanings behind their film. It's clear he's looking for dream logic and iconic imagery that evokes a tone and so on and the meanings should resonate differently with different people. But the guy was coming to film schools where people were learning how to MAKE films, and refusing to talk about filmmaking. It was galling because the guy would have no platform at all if he wasn't a filmmaker.
I'm curious - what did Inland Empire do that Mulholland Drive didn't, and vice-versa, to make you like one and not the other?
Hmm. Good question. MD hooked me into a story that I liked and was intrigued by; whereas IE would be a difficult movie for me to watch, even if it made sense - it's really jarring and noisey. It also felt like Lynch was painting a really expansive and wonderful (but sinister) world with MD, but the IE felt bleak and claustrophobic. Don't know if that explains much, but is it too simple to just say, "the general vibe"?
you mean you don't ride for 1960s structuralist cinema??????
I could get down with Michael Snow's Wavelength once, but I don't think I'd repeat watch it... I checked and the screening I described before was Lynne Marie Kirby, which makes it (I guess) 2000s structuralist cinema in a way.
Hmm. Good question. MD hooked me into a story that I liked and was intrigued by; whereas IE would be a difficult movie for me to watch, even if it made sense - it's really jarring and noisey. It also felt like Lynch was painting a really expansive and wonderful (but sinister) world with MD, but the IE felt bleak and claustrophobic. Don't know if that explains much, but is it too simple to just say, "the general vibe"?
Makes sense. Mulholland Drive was lush if nothing else.
That's the beauty of this Mulholland Drive, and all of his films. It's intentionally grotesque, disjointed and some parts just feel wrong, but there are some deeply memorable moments that somehow resonate with you on some level and somehow wind up deep into this mental visual library of every film you've ever watched. Like the strange guy behind the trash can, baby wants Blue Velvet, the unexplained blue cube in the handbag, Bill Pullman going nuts on the sax, Strange baby with the measles dying. David Lynch works in this magic realm of unsettling minutiae hidden deep within your mind that you didn't even know existed.
- spidey
Inland Empire was torture, though, right? (Did you ever see it, Spidey?) Did anyone here enjoy watching it? Redeeming qualities?
It wasn't torture, but imo it wasn't his best film. I think the story line was actually one of his most coherent stories ever. It even had a happy ending with a Nina Simone dance number. I guess the problems that I had with it boil down to: the digital cameras intentionally made every scene feel dated and campy, the lost girls plot line was uninteresting, and I don't think it was worth being 3 hours long.
Comments
I think it's entirely human to feel this incessant desire to want to organize information in your head. For example 999999999999999999999999 is much more satisfying then 28-7418-2#9C74274-821787874878f. I think the problem most people in America have with understanding complicated films is that they are naturally trying to figure out a Beginning, Middle, End and possibly even a moral deep meaning.
The reality is that nature is not designed to give you a satisfying experience. Things typically just happen, and it's up to you to find your own meaning to it. I noticed that most directors that focus on the language of visuals have understood that compelling art is not necessarily about the story you are telling. If you think deeply about it, leaving things up to your interpretation is the medium that all great creators work. Chefs, Architects, Engineers, Writers, Picasso, Salvador Dali, Fellini, Houdini, God. I don't think that Lynch himself couldn't even begin to imagine the depths of what people see in his films. I find it commendable that in his art he never intentionally tries to manipulate you into how to think or feel.
That's the beauty of this Mulholland Drive, and all of his films. It's intentionally grotesque, disjointed and some parts just feel wrong, but there are some deeply memorable moments that somehow resonate with you on some level and somehow wind up deep into this mental visual library of every film you've ever watched. Like the strange guy behind the trash can, baby wants Blue Velvet, the unexplained blue cube in the handbag, Bill Pullman going nuts on the sax, Strange baby with the measles dying. David Lynch works in this magic realm of unsettling minutiae hidden deep within your mind that you didn't even know existed.
- spidey
I am hyped and scared as fuck for the new Twin Peaks though. I have no idea what I would consider a success at this point. But I'm hoping for more Fire Walk With Me and less second series sitcom shit.
p.s. Welcome to the Lynchclub spidey.
I had a spare week last week to watch the entire Twin Peak series back to back topped off with Fire Walk With Me...
The tone throughout was really weird in that it could go from 'Twilight Zone' to cheesy 'Days of our Lives' pastiche in a single episode (possibly within one scene). But yeah the humour was present throughout.
It's actually the first time I've watched a tv series all the way through and I am a bit young to have gotten it first time around. But overall it was compelling but definitely lost steam once they solved the murder.
Fire Walk With Me seems to be the kind of thing Lynch would have done if he hadn't been constrained by the limits of television. I'm not sure it would work as a stand alone film without prior knowledge of the series. Anyone here seen it but not the series? Any thoughts?
Watched it as I have fond memories of the strategy game for PC.
Inland Empire was torture, though, right? (Did you ever see it, Spidey?) Did anyone here enjoy watching it? Redeeming qualities?
Yeah, I saw him "discuss" Inland Empire when it dropped, in LA - it began with an organ performance of incidental music, and he was cagey as f*ck about meaning. I think that's the way he wants it to be, and that's fine.
I'm curious - what did Inland Empire do that Mulholland Drive didn't, and vice-versa, to make you like one and not the other?
- spidey