David Lynch - Classic or Dud

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1977 of them)

View Previous Page...

slocki maybe if you start using that word people will think you're some "hollywood dude" who's "in the know"!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:38 (twenty years ago)

Montreal is the way and truth, man.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:39 (twenty years ago)

oh I forgot about collateral! i love collateral!

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:41 (twenty years ago)

this is fantastic news... however I was really hoping this was gonna be an announcement about complete Twin Peaks DVDs finally coming out.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:41 (twenty years ago)

Ha, Shakey Mo, you kidder. (Besides, it's only coming out in a double pack with The Complete Blade Runner.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:43 (twenty years ago)

there was a blade runner tv show?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

when's the preempreem for that?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

Anyone see the piece he did for the Lumiere film? God, that's one of the most jolting shorts ever.

― Jay Vee (Manon_70), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

Yes, a friend of mine has done some postproduction on this and he just told me that the working title was actually "TEH INLAND EMPIRE!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!!".

― Mallett McFlatFlat, Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

yes, it was called "Max Headroom" (bah, xxpost)

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

the lumiere short he did was the JAM!!! that was awesome!

worst one: peter greenaway who totally cheated!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:45 (twenty years ago)

yeah, his was the best short! actually that sort is one of my favorite things in the world.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

short

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

so amazing & perfect.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:47 (twenty years ago)

you can download it off the interweb, you know...

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:50 (twenty years ago)

i like the "early cinema" staging/framing/camera distance in the last "scene"--lynch has a great (intuitive i think) sense for how to evoke feelings through the use of antiquated stylistic devices. (see also the french impressionist film pastiches in "elephant man.)

god, i love lynch.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

that page is wrong, those aren't cuts, it's one long take!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

i know--he placed scrims and black boards in front of the camera to effect "cuts" i think.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:55 (twenty years ago)

that whole description is totally dubious. "There is no dialogue so it is totally abstract."

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:56 (twenty years ago)

I'm excited for this film!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

The title refers to the bleak residential area on the edge of the desert near L.A.

This kind of blanket description annoys me.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

I don't think Collateral's going to be a good reference point. He references the lack of tight grain in early 35mm which sounds like there's going to be a good deal of digital noise and 'ugliness' (to some).

Collateral had almost no noise and it would be hard to argue that it didn't look pretty close to 35mm film.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 12 May 2005 20:59 (twenty years ago)

sort of...although it registered fast motion and light (esp. low light and quick light changes) very differently from 35mm.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:02 (twenty years ago)

What's with the 35mmism, ILX? Surely one of Full Frontal, Pieces of April, Tadpole, Festen, Chuck and Buck, or Dancer in the Dark can sway you? Hasn't this argument long been settled?

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

The Inland Empire is where Shakey Mo Collier is from!

As well as incredibly legendary skate spots, a decent arts colony, and home of a one-time interesting music scene - Refrigerator, Nothing Painted Blue, Diskothi-Q and (file-them-in-the-Where-Are-They-Now?-Category) the Mountain Goats.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

Haha wait all those movies looked pretty terrible.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 12 May 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

I think Festen and Tadpole both look good!

― Remy (x Jeremy), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

New David Lynch film = best news of my day. And I even bought awesome new sandals this afternoon, so. Also, in the syllogistic-premonition category: Poland is great, so this film will be great.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

Haha wait all those movies looked pretty terrible.

Alex took the words out of my mouth! Dancer in the Dark, as much as I like it story and music-wise, looks awful; I never wanted a movie to be in Cinescope so much.

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Dancer is easily the poorest looking Von Triers movie.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

BTW I like DV just fine (and the idea of Lynch using a DV too.) I just don't think the above are good examples of fine looking DV movies.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

festen looks good in its particular one-chip way.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 12 May 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

Pieces of April didn't look completely terrible, but the gritty/doc feeling of the cinematography didn't work with the subject at all.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 12 May 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

A Lynch film on HD (ala Collateral) could be incredible, though, with the amount of color work he could do in post. When I think of my fave Lynch films there's a certain visual lushness that would be lost on noisy/flat DV.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 12 May 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)

what i like about Lynch's special effects is that they are actually achieved right there in front of the camera or with film effects (for example the transformation of bill pullman into balthazar getty in Lost highway which seems to be acheived with speeded up footage and overlapped film) and don't have that fake sheen that digital effects often have. I'm still psyched about this and keen to see what he does with the medium, of course.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 12 May 2005 23:53 (twenty years ago)

most of lynch's "special effects" are like weird lighting shifts and fucked-up industrial noises. but yeah when he does do a more traditional "effect" it often has a sort of homegrown quality that calls attention to itself in an appealing way.

i really adore him without thinking any of his films are exactly perfect or even my favorites. although the short film mentioned above and the final episode of twin peaks are pretty close to perfect.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:17 (twenty years ago)

man i gotta do the whole twin peaks thing again sometime soon.

amateurist have you seen the "pilot" version of mulholland drive ever?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:20 (twenty years ago)

not am, but I have.

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:21 (twenty years ago)

how do you know he hasn't?

just kidding. what was it like?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

and how did you get it? ebay? torrent?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

amateurist have you seen the "pilot" version of mulholland drive ever?

yes, my roommate ca. 2000 had it.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:25 (twenty years ago)

I got it from superhappyfun, weak VHS dub (plus two Lynch-directed commercials). It was almost exactly what you'd expect it to be from watching the movie (same plot, no lezzing up, minus the twist, monster (I think), silencio, etc.).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:27 (twenty years ago)

surely not the SAME plot.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:28 (twenty years ago)

so i guess everyone in the world but me has seen it. well that's just great. i hope you guys ENJOYED it.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:28 (twenty years ago)

Very disappointing that it wasn't made into a series. It could have been fantastic, based on the performances and setting. I don't know where it would have gone as a series, though - Laura Palmer-esque season-long investigation? Hott blonde and brunette detective agency?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:29 (twenty years ago)

ding ding ding on that last one.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:30 (twenty years ago)

If I can find my DVD-R, I'll mail it to you. I kind of doubt that I'll ever have the overwhelming desire to watch it again.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:30 (twenty years ago)

ding ding ding on that one too! thanks!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:31 (twenty years ago)

am!st and s1ocki, tell me more about why you like the Lumiere film so much.

― jed_ (jed), Friday, 13 May 2005 01:34 (twenty years ago)

i think i'll write on essay on it one of these days.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Friday, 13 May 2005 03:58 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 1877 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.