The Film Thread: Page 85 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

The Film Thread

Claudius

Mulholland Drive is a cinematic gem

IBL

It horses for courses though Klaus, people look for different things in films. Sometimes I'm after an engaging thought provoking flick, other times a comedy caper, or just simply a mindless action movie where no brain processing is required.

I personally find that its best to approach every movie without too much expectation, let the movie deliver what it has to you and you can make your own mind up.

Burnwinter

@[deleted] @[deleted] Life itself (and dreams for that matter) are sequences of events, sometimes admitting a neat and rational interpretation, sometimes not. Room for both in film.

Also, Klaus, not going to get into it again over the film itself, but saying "if you just wrote down the events of Drive it would be shit" is rather silly. There's probably a half-dozen efficient genre writers (ones you probably love) who could turn Drive into a classy short story, and do so without hackish internal monologues or exposition.

Klaus

Since I didn't say that I'm not going to argue against it.

Burnwinter

Ignoring for a moment that I didn't like it, I know that a lot of people did. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't care for it if you'd just write down what happens in the film and hand it to them, though. The story is not what makes it a good experience.

Close enough.

One thesis statement of your post - that film is fairly mediocre at communicating actual story - is totally tenuous. People all over the world love the way films tell stories, because they do it brilliantly.

I agree more or less with the rest of it though.

Klaus

Well I should have been clearer. They're excellent at telling stories, but not on the same premise as literature. Which is what all too many writers seem to aim at. Which is why there's a ridiculous amount of exposition and plot to communicate, perhaps interspersed with a few montage effects and dressed up in expensive photo to appease the viewer. All too often people tell me that I need to see a film because the story is amazing and I walk away from the cinema finding the story pretty simple while I'm much more impressed over the way the film depicted it. That's what I meant with the example with Drive, which I actually credited for playing to the strengths of the medium. The logic step to Lynch's filmmaking is not that big from there.

Burnwinter

Fair enough. I think you weren't clear enough as well then, and I agree.

banduan

I found Mulholland Drive absolutely depressing.
edit: and Eraserhead? That was just nuts!

USArsenal

im just not a fan of Lynch.. as Burnsy said, there's room in cinema for all types of movies, i just choose not to enjoy those kinds (and as most know, i watch almost ALL kinds).. actually, that's not a good way to describe.. i dont choose not to enjoy, i just don't enjoy... obviously some enjoy it, and that's cool.. im sure many dont enjoy some of the movies that i like

Burnwinter

Totally mate. And looking back at your original comment on the subject, all you ever gave was your subjective preference - not some kind of edict about what is or isn't good.

Out of curiosity, have you ever watched Twin Peaks? If so what did you think?

Ray

anyone seen john carter

USArsenal

which one? the TV show or the movie? (doesnt matter really, the answer is no to both).. i could have gone back and watched it, but it only lasted 2 seasons and there are too many shows that I watch now

Burnwinter

Meant the TV show.

Fair enough. It's a strange, combined soap/detective/supernatural horror program that introduces some of Lynch's preferences in a more conventional and accessible sort of way. Reckon you might like it - the first season's excellent anyway.

USArsenal

read that the show went downhill (fast) once they revealed the outcome of the major plotline..

lorddulaarsenal

SamDaGooner wrote:
anyone seen john carter

Right here bruv. Sup?

SimplyThePest

Dules, what were your thoughts on John Carter? Worth a look? Girl looks good, in fairness 😛

Burnwinter

@[deleted] exactly. Once the Laura Palmer storyline ends it gets very incoherent and isn't as good. The second season was totally bollocksed up by studio interference and had to be finished on a cliffhanger against Lynch/Frost's original plans.

Klaus

It was great once the whole Windom Earle arch got going though. It just took some time to recover, and by then it was too late.

Burnwinter

Yes, I'd agree with that. Windom Earle's a good antagonist, the last couple of episodes are fucking scary, and of course season three, had it been made, would've been fascinating, given the cliffhanger ending!

But there's so many irritating plot arcs in the second season.

Billy Zane's pointless character, Catherine Martell running around in a silly Asian businessman disguise, James' liaison with that Kim Basinger lookalike, and so on. In my opinion they're pretty much a waste of time and space compared to the equivalent soap opera elements of season one. It's quite hard to watch at times.

Klaus

Definitely. I think they spent an entire episode showing how Dick and Andy competed for the same girl by throwing sone kind of fashion show, for example. In the end I suppose it just became another absurd element that added to the show's mythology, but it must've been painful to watch at the time. 😆

« Previous Page Next Page »