David Lynch: Genius or Hack?

Cafe Society
1

I have watched most of David Lynch’s movies. Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. They have never failed to entertain me. My least favorite out of all of those is Eraserhead, simply because I find it too weird and boring. But I don’t think that the other movies I’ve mentioned are like that at all. I think Lynch is a very clever, artistic, and expressive filmmaker and I think his movies are great.

Some of the things that make his movies great:

Consistently good casts: he casts not only big-name talent but also a lot of obscure actors who really own their roles. Plus, he likes to feature musicians (Marilyn Manson, Chris Isaak, Henry Rollins) in his movies.

Really good set design: great rooms, and great use of color and light in all the elements of the sets.

Dynamic use of music: from the scoring and arrangements (done by the same guy, Angelo Badalementi, in most of the movies) to the contemporary rock songs (Rammstein, Lou Reed), Lynch knows exactly when to use the music in a really powerful way. Also, he utilizes a lot of really classy jazz, which is great background music for his characters’ interaction.

Enough humor to break up the tension: There are so many hilarious scenes in Lynch’s movies. Some that come to mind: The pool cleaner scene in Mulholland Drive. Gary Busey’s character in Lost Highway. “The Great Went” in Fire Walk With Me. There are a ton more - little nuggets of absurdist humor in otherwise tense and cerebral films.

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that people don’t like about Lynch. I’m willing to overlook these things because I love the stuff I’ve just mentioned, but there’s no doubt that there are polarizing elements to his movies:

Weak storylines - let’s face it, the character motivations are often lacking, and the story arcs are more like story zigzags.

Unnatural dialog - I personally like Lynch’s dialog and think that it is intentionally awkward and stunted, but a lot of people seem to dislike it and find it unrealistic and unpleasant.

Too much weirdness - I don’t really need to explain this one, but suffice it to say, Lynch doesn’t push the envelope, he rips it into pieces.

And the number one complaint:

“I don’t understand what the fuck is going on!!!”

I know that there are hundreds of theories floating all over the message boards and websites about what the point of Lynch’s movies are, and hundreds of people trying to explain exactly what everything means. Personally, I don’t even think there’s a right or wrong answer. The viewer is free to interpret the films and appreciate them for their artistic qualities, and draw whatever conclusions about the story and the characters that he or she pleases. Yes, there are accepted timelines and the like for all of the movies, but beyond that, the meaning of the weirdo scenes is up to the viewer - and I like it that way.

So what do you all think about Lynch? Is he a cinematic genius, or a pretentious hack?

2

Let’s see. Of movies he directed I have seen Elephant Man, Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart.

I thought E.M. was really well done but I saw it so long ago I barely remember it. The other two I was disappointed in. I think I decided that if he was indeed an artistic genius then his output was just too impenetrable for stupid little old me, and that I would stick to watching movies with lots of 'splosions.

I also remember succesfully making a concerted effort not to watch a single second of “Twin Peaks” when it was on because I couldn’t stand all the hype and I guessed ahead of time that he didn’t know where he was going with it and was going to make it up as he went. I’m not sorry I missed it.

3

You should be, especially through the resolution of the Who Killed Laura Palmer storyline. Now that the hype is over, if you like Lynch at all, consider watching it. The first season is on DVD and the second is on VHS if you can still find it.

As for the OP, to the question of genius or hack, can’t it be both? TP is disjointed (not entirely Lynch’s fault) but brilliant, Blue Velvet is brilliant, FWWM is flawed but still great. His sitcom, On the Air, is wildly uneven but at its best is great. Elephant Man is good.

Wild at Heart is awful, Lost Highway is terrible. Mulholland Dr. was OK, not as great as people seem to think it is. Dune has a bad reputation but isn’t as bad as people think it is. Eraserhead has this weird hypnotic effect on me and I’ve never been able to stay awake all the way through.

And of course his home pregnancy test commercial from a few years ago was just amazing.

4

I saw these, plus Eraserhead, Mulholland Drive and Dune, and probably a couple of others I don’t remember. Of all of them, the one I enjoyed the most was The Elephant Man, mainly because he simply let Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt and John Gielgud do what they do best without adding in weirdess just for the sake of weirdness like he does in his other films. I might like The Straight Story for much the same reason.

I don’t think he’s a hack, but I do think he’s in love with his own cleverness, and it gets to be a pain in the ass to watch.

5

Cinematic genius, all the way.

Sublight put forward “gets to be a pain in the ass to watch,” which I also agree with. There’s a lot of stuff in his work that doesn’t work for me, and stuff that just plain doesn’t work, and that definitely gets into pain in the ass territory.

I disagree with pretentious hack on both points – I don’t think there’s any pretense at all to this guy – he’s not presenting his work or his ideas as more weird than than they are, he is actually that weird. I can’t make hack fit with him either, even the things that I think are stinkers come by that honestly, not because he was trying to crank something out for shock value.

6

Oh, yeah, he’s weird. I worked with his brother, John, for a while and he said David was always the strange one in the family. I saw some of his early short films and they were just signs of the expansive weirdness to come.

I like his work, though I readily admit sometimes I just don’t have the energy to go with him on the journey. Lost Highway? Never again. And *I * liked Wild at Heart.

7

Unfortunately I just don’t have that kind of time available in my life these days, even if I wanted to. I respect your recommendation though and will keep it in mind.

8

Genius? Maybe not. But damn good director.

9

My thoughts exactly. I’ve seen Dune, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, and both the TV and movie versions of Twin Peaks, all of which I liked a lot (well, not so much Fire Walk With Me, truth be told). I was disappointed to see Twin Peaks lose its way after its initial brilliance. Lynch should’ve stuck by his guns and kept it as a miniseries when the network waved more shekels at him.

10

The Straight Story is an odd one. It’s the least Lynchian of Lynch’s movies. It proves that Lynch CAN tell a story with a plot and could make straighforward movies if only he wanted to. He just doesn’t want to.

11

Boy, not a single mention of Dune?
I liked Elephant Man, the TV series Twin Peaks (when it started), The Straight Story, and, to some extent, Dune. I donm’t know if anyone can say they liked Eraserhead, but it was certainly interesting, and you can’t accuse it of being a sell-out. In these pieces, Lynch was definitely a director with his own style and voice and vision. Clearly not a hack.

12

The definition of “hack” as relates to art, I think, is one who relies on a limited number of skills/techniques in artistic expression, the classic “The only tool I have is a hammer, therefore I’m treating every problem as a nail” artist. This shouldn’t be confused with a director’s personal style, which should broad enough to avoid becoming the cliche that most hack directors present.

Simple test: Do I want to go and see the next film directed by X because (1) he/she always brings something interesting to the story, or (2) because I expect this film to be like/do the same things as the last film he/she directed? If your answer is more like (2), I’m betting that director is a hack.

The problem with Lynch is, does the general “weirdness” of his films count as style, or as a lazy crutch? I personally found Blue Velvet to be a signature masterpiece, and despite the flaws of Twin Peaks (weekly network television was perhaps not the best venue for his talents) think it deserves its status as a masterwork. By the time we got to Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, I think he overreached in applying his style to other more traditional cinema elements like plot and character; in effect, I thought Lynch was being weird strictly for the sake of weird.

His signature style dominated these films, so I have to say now that he’s closer to hack status.