Comment by stnmtn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stnmtn | Hacker News Reader

This is a very frustrating article because, and I'm making assumptions here, it seems like the author hasn't tried that much to go beyond canonical american cinema. If I'm wrong, then my mistake, but the only films mentioned here are hollywood productions and it seems like the movies they're dissapointed by browsing Amazon Prime are the latest big-budget Hollywood production that doesn't have much special going on

Also, the #5 footnote says a lot. I'm a huge David Lynch fan, so understand I'm speaking with bias here, but to fully dismiss movies that are loved by many as "objectively bad" speaks to a small imagination of what films can be. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean the director is "shooting from the hip and doesn't know anything"... and so what if Lynch is? He finds beauty in the subconscious and dreams and connects things together that don't have an immediately obvious connection. To dismiss Twin Peaks (something which is awe-inspiring in the way it displays the raw power of human imagination) as "a disaster" to me means that the author has not really pushed themselves to expand their horizons.

International cinema constantly amazes and inspires me. I've been logging 50+ movies a year for 7-8 years now and all the time am enjoying and finding more enrichment in it. That's not to say it's not valid for someone to not experience things the way I experience them, but this author speaks with an objectivity that really frustrates me.

Author here. I've dug reasonably far into international cinema -- at a glance, about 250 - 300 outside US Cinema, across various time periods: French New Wave, Korean, Iranian, etc.

On David Lynch -- I like stuff that is weird and unusual. I LOVED the first three or four episodes of Twin Peaks. But after that, it was an unbelievable disappointment. You cannot seriously tell me that the latter half of Season Two was good. It was clear that Lynch had drafted the body of a Blue Velvet-style movie that lent itself well to a few hours of material, but once you got past the first three or four episodes, there was no material left. From there on, the attempts to keep the plot together became more and more abstruse.

With a guy like Lynch, these movies do not showcase the "raw power of the human imagination" -- what they showcase is a man who is deeply disorganized.

To the extent that his films are flawed, they are always flawed in the same way: execution of the latter half. Premise and first half is always fine. That pattern speaks volumes.

Thanks for responding! I really hope I didn't come across as too harsh, I definitely made some assumptions and probably straw-manned you.

For Twin peaks, of course the latter half of season two isn't great, but that's because David lynch left after the network made him reveal the killer, which was never a part of the plan.

So then after the incredible 3-4 lynch directed episode of early season 2 and he leaves, it falls down a cliff before what is perhaps my favorite 42 minutes of media ever in the Season 2 finale, where Lynch comes back and delivers such a dizzying and intoxicating episode with so many questions left lingering that I find it genuinely inspiring.

Then I'm guessing you haven't seen Twin Peaks The Return, but that is the thing that cements twin peaks as a masterpiece imo.

And a lot of lynch movies have an amazing second half, Mulholland Drive being the prime example where it's revealed what the film is actually about and it explores the psyche and dreams of a woman unable to live up to what she thought she could.

Of course, there is no objectivity in film and opinions; especially with Lynch. if you don't like his stuff more power to you! But my only issue is feels like you levy that people who like his stuff are pretentious, only liking it because it's 'cool' to pretend to understand his stuff.

And to be honest, I believe that his stuff has a dense internal logic that is fascinating to try to unpack and it does always have a deeper meaning.. but to take what you say I don't see the big deal if he genuinely is fumbling about because the things I draw from his best creations are so deep and inspiring to me. It's like a dream you have, where if you break it down it makes no sense yet still you ascribe meaning to these things. And to be clear, I really believe most great lynch projects are internally cohesive and do have something they are meant to say/explain; understanding what the second half of Mulholland drive actually was and connecting it all together is probably my favorite experience that I've ever had with film, I really felt like a detective finally cracking a hard case!

But again, this is not to say Lynch is objectively good, just that I'm insanely biased and really really like his specific brand of shit. My main point is just to say that I don't think the way you phrased your criticisms of him are valid because you took a very objective tone

>He finds beauty in the subconscious and dreams and connects things together that don't have an immediately obvious connection.

Lynch has obsessions with domestic relationships that get predictable, and are immediately obvious. I still like twin peaks but its dumb to assume he "doesn't get it" just because he doesn't care for it. If he's watched 600+ movies he probably gets it. And the show WAS a disaster if only for the 100 loose ends it never tied up before being canceled.

I also concur on the bad take re: Lynch. He's definitely an acquired taste, but reading beyond the "text" (screen?) a bit into his creative process has helped me appreciate his works and inspires my own creativity.

We can all agree the second season of Twin Peaks was terrible, though, right?

Everything in between the killer-reveal episode and the finale is god-awful, yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com