No one can possibly understand the movie after watching it once. Even Roger Ebert, who is a very intelligent man and whose opinions I deeply respect (and almost always agree with), totally misread the movie. When he reviewed it, he said that he thought the movie wasn't supposed to make any sense, but everything in the movie has its explanation.CLOONEY said:
Like all of his films there is no point, its basically hazey sh!t given merit by pretentious wankers.CLOONEY said:
Who'd a thunk it.Jariel said:
Since we are obviously talking to a scholar, what exactly was the non-point of Blue Velvet? At what point was it not compelling? At what point was Dennis Hopper's character acting less than mindboggling amazing? How did Lynch fail to produce a movie which upon its first viewing creeps the hell out of its audience?
One thing I found fascinating about the movie is that it gradually changed styles. The beginning felt like a bad B-movie with stilted acting, which was entirely the point: it was Diane's idea of good acting. But then afterwards the style changes to being exceptional acting. (And did anyone notice that in the very beginning, the license plate of the limo was "2GAY4U"?)
Sadly, the DVD is no longer produced. I need to get to eBay sometime.
Magnolia and Dark City.
Sheeesh dont make out as if a Lynch movie is some awesome alternate to the rest of the trash Hollywood throws out. I loathe the typical Hollywood drivel as much as the next guy but to imply Lynch is some pioneer to save us from the usual garbage is bollocks.CLOONEY said:
lol and this is the usual cookie cutter retort a Lynch fan will normally reply with.Deep Dish said:
Good observation! That was something I hadn't picked up on, but now you mention it, I see exactly what you mean! It was all quite corny and sickly sweet to begin with, then took a dark turn, and the quality of acting followed too.Deep Dish said:
When it comes to attention spans, I certainly wasn’t referring to someone watching the film for the first time. Everyone will agree that it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to understand the movie after the first screening, without cheating. It took me four times (and some help) to grasp the general concept of what was really going on, but the understanding was the hardest to come by and the film was the most complex and perplexing film I've ever seen to date. So, when it comes to attention span, it’s about how long, how many viewings, someone cared to care and paid attention to the nuances. For most people, that attention span ended after the first viewing, saying to hell with David Lynch, that f*cker. But for those who stuck around and gradually unlocked its answers, we were rewarded with a great satisfaction. Everything does ultimately make sense and it was so emotionally engaging and psychedelic. We're not being pretentious and being able to appreciate the film is open to probably anyone who cares enough. Most people didn't care, which is fair enough, chalk it up to differences in theatrical tastes, but again it's unreasonable to be obnoxious and condescending towards those who did. But no hard feelings, boobs, I've never liked your opinions and so I don't feel too personally offended.
I'm going to need to watch it again, because I didn't pick up on that and because that's a tremendously true insight into human memory.
10 odd hours of a Lynch film, looking for some "concept" to grasp? Thats time well spent, no wonder nearly all your posts are 3 page diatribes that could be summed up in a sentence or two.
Do a search and you'll find thousands of morons praising David Lynch, thank fvck for this guy.
