TWIN PEAKS

[xox]

6 hours ago, Wunderbar said:

Like after listening to some instrumental music do you care about a meaning ? I feel like in music we only really care about the feeling why is that so different with visual art?

quite complex and difficult to explain! i tried to write about it on watmm several times but didn’t find much understanding; my broken english didn’t help 

you can find explanations in kant’s and schopenhauer’s works on aesthetics 

try to google: “kant on music” and “schopenhauer on music” and maybe you’ll find some interesting articles 

recommended books (there are others too but these are the best i know of): critique of judgment by kant (whole book) and the world as will and representation by schopenhauer (chapter “on genius”) - don’t read nothing modern bc those authors just repeat the same thing, badly, at best

after kant and schoppy comes sufism, something like ibn arabi 

Edited January 21 by xox

[Squee]

18 hours ago, Wunderbar said:

Why are people so concerned with the meaning behind the art ? Shouldn't the things you felt be the only thing that mattered?

Agreed.
That 4 hour The Return analysis on Youtube feels so unnecessary (also the guy in the video is so annoying) if you ask me. It doesn't matter what it's about and all "definitive" answers won't be as fun as whatever it is you feel and can't explain when watching Lynch's stuff.

[ooqpoo]

By the end of watching The Return I always have a bazillion tabs open where I've searched on this or that scene or character, or some perceived connection between things that crops up while watchin, I kind of know it's probably futile but it adds to the fun. But then there's sometimes things that are actually just editing mistakes (like the inconsistent way traffic is passing in the background while Ed Hurley ponders over a coffee in one of the credit scenes) that will also get obsessed over by certain fans. 

That guy and his 4 hour youtube video was rough (think I only made it an hour in) but I did thoroughly enjoy John Thorne's book and am (still) waiting on my copy of Black Coffee Lightning to arrive. 

[oscillik]

6 hours ago, Squee said:

Agreed.
That 4 hour The Return analysis on Youtube feels so unnecessary (also the guy in the video is so annoying) if you ask me. It doesn't matter what it's about and all "definitive" answers won't be as fun as whatever it is you feel and can't explain when watching Lynch's stuff.

I will never watch that analysis

[Squee]

6 minutes ago, oscillik said:

I will never watch that analysis

I watched 10 minutes but was annoyed after 1 minute. 

[cruising for burgers]

On 1/21/2024 at 2:06 PM, Wunderbar said:

Why are people so concerned with the meaning behind the art ? Shouldn't the things you felt be the only thing that mattered?

Like after listening to some instrumental music do you care about a meaning ? I feel like in music we only really care about the feeling why is that so different with visual art?

spot on!

it's all about the mood dudes, that inherent sense of dread that only Mr. Lynch can provoke... it's psychological horror without ghosts or gore... the uneasiness... the macabre… the surreal… I couldn't give a fuck what do certain things mean... those analysis are like math… if I did I'm almost sure it would spoil all the fun... it's all subjective... even the man himself states that some of his stuff comes from his own dreams and he just puts it on screen... he also masters comic relief in his own way... in twin peaks he kinda uses all the tv tropes from that era... bringing up the villains shame/weaknesses (blue velvet) is also a really important part for me in his stuff... those jazzy dreamlike songs in twin peaks are the tits and fit so well with what's going on... and I mean, what the hell is going on?

that scene in the bar in lost highway when the music gets full of reverb and kinda fades into background music is also gold...

could go on and on about stuff that makes me uneasy on his movies without even know why...

daymares!

 

anyway, why do people like to stare at fucking Mona Lisa right?

Edited January 22 by cruising for burgers

[IDEM]

I don't see the problem with watching/reading an analysis of something I like. Often it's lots of overinterpretative BS, but I can always take note of the things that make sense to me and discard the rest, and I don't see how that should be detrimental to my enjoyment of the thing itself. Learning about the historical context of a painting, a novel or another work of art can certainly reveal new layers to it and help me appreciate it even more. Of course you can enjoy it on a purely aesthetic level, but why not have your cake and eat it?

Now, annoying dudes on the other hand, well that's just a no-no.

[raljax]

Yes. If e.g. i take a very firm i'm not going to watch ANY analysis of e.g. films or read any...what if I'm wrong in that stance and robbing myself? The only time I didn't enjoy criticism/analysis was when It was a set task. But even then there were some very good critics and analysts imo - that I appreciated reading and that helped me "get" some things that, without those realisations, i wouldn't have enjoyed the text as much. 

[IDEM]

I believe it's called enlightenment

[Rubin Farr]

[ignatius]

HB DL. 78 today

just gotta add. this guy has had amazing hair is entire life. 

Edited January 25 by ignatius

[IDEM]

4 hours ago, ignatius said:

HB DL. 78 today

just gotta add. this guy has had amazing hair is entire life. 

A shampoo/styling gel line would not go unappreciated. Hell, "Eraserhead", "Blue Velvet", "Wild at Heart", "Fire Walk With Me", even "Twin Peaks" are all pretty decent names for haircare products! Not so sure 'bout "Elephant Man", but for diversity's sake ...

[Rubin Farr]

[BlockUser]

On 1/21/2024 at 6:06 PM, Wunderbar said:

Why are people so concerned with the meaning behind the art ? Shouldn't the things you felt be the only thing that mattered?

Like after listening to some instrumental music do you care about a meaning ? I feel like in music we only really care about the feeling why is that so different with visual art?

I agree with you. Film is mostly used to tell stories, and a lot of films stick to age-old narrative structures, or subversions of these structures. The hero's journey is a very prominent example. The roots of film lie in theater, in other words: In text, in narrative, in character development. What Lynch does is use the medium of film to do something completely different, something that is a lot more about raw subjective experience instead of an objectively true and reliable narrative (true in the sense of "what we can say actually happened in this story"). He seems to not care if we see the same thing he does, maybe because the emotional experience is what he's most interested in. Like there is no way of watching these films "the right way".  A true liberal lmao! I love his work but never bothered with the clues to Mulholland Drive.

Lynch is special in that he brought this approach into the consciousness of pop culture. I was at a video store once (yeah, long time ago obviously), and there were these two hooligan types who were just checking out splatter stuff but then one of them pointed at Eraserhead and said something like "man, I've seen that one, if you want to watch something that'll really fuck you up, watch this". Today, a lot of films use "Lynchian" stuff for flavour, while still sticking to old structural formulas. No one but Lynch can pull this off, even the directors of series 2 of Twin Peaks failed to realise that this isn't just about doing something weird.

I think most people really do prefer music with lyrics and a face attached. Even if they love the melodies, instrumental music just doesn't cut it for a lot of people. People love a good story. Unless they go to a club. But then, the club is the story.

[BlockUser]

On 1/21/2024 at 7:35 PM, decibal cooper said:

In the case of Twin Peaks or other Lynch work, him and his team who help with audio and post-production, it seems like they pay very careful attention to the sound and this helps communicate the dream-like quality of the imagery.

Yup, and even more: He's said before that sometimes, a sound is the beginning of a scene. Meaning a scene didn't start with a narrative at all, but just with a sound that to him suggested a particular mood, texture, or development. So the imagery was derived from the sound instead of the sound merely emphasizing the image.

[IDEM]

On 1/30/2024 at 12:28 PM, BlockUser said:

The roots of film lie in theater, in other words: In text, in narrative, in character development.

I'm not sure that's accurate. While TV evolved from radio, the roots of film lie in carnival attractions and spectacle such as magic lanterns, zoetropes, and chronophotography. Movies were a silent medium for a long time, the "action" mostly restricted to humorous little slapstick scenes or sensations like fast-moving trains and animals created to titillate and/or scare the audience. The technical aspect and the thrill of the moving image per se dominated over any sort of narrative structure for quite a while.
At least that's what they taught us in college ...

[BlockUser]

Yeah I was being sloppy and hyperbole there, there's more to film and its history ofc. Think I also read somewhere that David Lynch called it an artform that combines all artforms. It's sound, image, narrative, and beyond what would strictly be called art, architecture, fashion design, and more. The novelty aspect had to wear off for it to become an artform in its own right. The step from "wow, we can do this!" to "okay, so what are we actually doing with this?".

[decibal cooper]

1 hour ago, IDEM said:

I'm not sure that's accurate. While TV evolved from radio, the roots of film lie in carnival attractions and spectacle such as magic lanterns, zoetropes, and chronophotography. Movies were a silent medium for a long time, the "action" mostly restricted to humorous little slapstick scenes or sensations like fast-moving trains and animals created to titillate and/or scare the audience. The technical aspect and the thrill of the moving image per se dominated over any sort of narrative structure for quite a while.
At least that's what they taught us in college ...

From what I remember about learning the early days of film, this sounds spot on. I think that the earliest 'narrative films' were limited to one reel of film, which if not mistaken elapses over a 15 or 20 minute time period. There are a lot of great early Charlie Chaplin shorts where he definitely manages to get some meaningful narrative in there between the sentiment and slapstick. Remember reading too that once multi-reel films started to get going, they had more time to work with, but a lot of the films were melodramas or adaptations of novels or stage plays. D. W. Griffith in America was probably the director more than any other who really made it modern (in terms of developing narrative film and creating the grammar for continuity editing). There were a lot of Russian guys doing really interesting experimental and montage stuff around that time I think too. I've never heard Lynch talk about Vertov or Eisenstein or those guys, but some the experimental nature of his work reminds me of that early stuff at times.

[DavieAddison]

Kyle MacLachlan was just on Brett Goldstein's movie podcast and there's lots of Twin Peaks/David Lynch talk towards the beginning. Mark Frost was also on a while ago.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/kyle-maclachlan-films-to-be-buried-with-with/id1408585620?i=1000643651832

[Real Human Bean]

On 1/22/2024 at 10:49 PM, cruising for burgers said:

even the man himself states that some of his stuff comes from his own dreams and he just puts it on screen

He's actually gone out of his way multiple times to say he very rarely gets direct inspiration from his (night time) dreams.

I can't find the interview now but I remember him saying the only direct idea taken from a dream was when he was unsure of how to convert Mulholland Drive from a TV pilot into a standalone film, something came to him in a dream which he felt subsequently tied the whole thing together.

 

Edited February 1 by Real Human Bean
wrong link

[Key]

Yeah I seem to recall him saying its during meditation, not dreams, where his ideas come to him.

[decibal cooper]

[thejewk]

I haven't watched the most recent Twin Peaks series for some time, but what stays with me most is the scene with Ed in the diner when he finally, once and for all, gets the girl.  It's one of the most wonderful and romantic scenes I've ever seen.

[decibal cooper]

1 minute ago, thejewk said:

I haven't watched the most recent Twin Peaks series for some time, but what stays with me most is the scene with Ed in the diner when he finally, once and for all, gets the girl.  It's one of the most wonderful and romantic scenes I've ever seen.

Love that scene, the Otis Redding song works really well in it, perfect choice for a slow burn romance with many obstacles finally coming to fruition.

This is one of the scenes that has stayed with me over the years:

 

[DavieAddison]

26 minutes ago, decibal cooper said:

Love that scene, the Otis Redding song works really well in it, perfect choice for a slow burn romance with many obstacles finally coming to fruition.

This is one of the scenes that has stayed with me over the years:

 

It was nice of Lynch to offer this cameo to Joe Rogan.