David Lynch - One of the Triumvirate of American Directors?

Cafe Society
1

Not a big fan of American directors to say the least. Something counterproductive and selfdescriptive about the Monday morning Weekend Box Office Gross. Entertainment is rarely art and it’s so very rare when a trip to the movies turns into the discovery of something beautiful.

Like Mulholland Drive. What a surprise. From the ultra-American beginning scenes to the Fellini-Bergmanesque personality dissection to the surreality of the ending, this film is relentlessly emotive and richly textured, not to mention mindbending.
…spoiler…
I’m still churning over the meaning of the theft of the address book (what a farce!) and the mysterious blue box, but I keep coming back to Del Rio’s stunning vocal performance and the unbelievable acting of Harring & Watts.

I think Lynch has earned his place alongside Kubrick and Scorcese. I never thought he’d come close to Blue Velvet again. I was wrong, Mulholland Dr. is better.

2

Who are the other two directors in your triumvirate?

3

Well I assume it is Kubrick and Scorcese. Kubrick was American although he made all his movies in the UK. But if you are going to include deceased Directors shouldn’t we include John Huston, Howard Hawks and many others?

4

I like David Lynch but I think many American directors surpass him. Woody Allen comes to mind immediately. Francis Ford Coppola, Orson Welles, Robert Altman come soon after.

5

I am a huge fan of David Lynch, but I would hesitate to put him in America’s “Three Best” or even “Ten Best.” When he fails, he fails miserably. In some ways, I almost consider him a medium unto himself – there’s television, there’s film, and there’s David Lynch. I think of him as a performance artist who uses human props and coincidentally records his work with a camera.

6

It’s a little tricky ascribing nationality to some directors. Kubrick seems to be an American maker of fine English films, while Chaplin, Hitchcock, Polanski, and Preminger were makers of highly popular and influential films in America.

Lynch is one of my favorites, but his genius may lie above my comprehension. I don’t consider him among the greatest. Perhaps this latest will change my mind.

7

I think Lynch has been on and off in the past, and, in addition to the other directors already mentioned, we can’t forget Orson Welles’ picks for the triumvirate of old masters, “John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford”.

8

Hmm, Different strokes, etc.

Ford & Hawks were certainly more influntial than talented if you ask me.

Welles had Citizen Kane, the shining exception in his uninspired directing career. I like him better as an actor (especially in the Third Man).

Robert Altman had M.A.S.H. which was great, but I can’t think of any other of his films that made me think.

Woody Allen is certainly competent. I just don’t like his directing style or his acting.

Coppola’s certainly one of the best American directors and if Kubrick’s considered a Brit, he’s the replacement!

Did anyone actually see Mulholland Drive???

9

Ford and Hawks were certainly the first two names in any triumvriate of American directors. They were master storytellers and got all sorts of wonderful and subtle performances out of their actors.

The third gets problematic. Welles made quite a few excellent films (not just “Kane,” but “The Magnificent Ambersons,” “Touch of Evil,” “The Stranger,” “Othello,” and “The Lady from Shanghai”). Unfortunately, he rarely could do what he wanted.

Hitchcock is a good choice, unless you don’t want to count him because he’s British. But his American films were definitely American in conception, and his best work.

Coppolla might have made the list, only his work was uneven after “Apocolypse Now.”

Woody Allen would be an interesting choice, but his direction was no more than competent. He is, however, a master of the screenplay.

Scorsese is a good candidate: lots of good films.

I’d vote for Hitchcock, Ford, and Hawks. IF you through out Hitchcock for being british, then I’d add Scorsese.

As far as Lynch is concerned, his career is much too uneven to be listed among the top. When he’s good (“Blue Velvet”), he’s great, but there are just too many uneven films to put him there.

10

I strongly disagree with Ford and Hawks being strong, creative, thought provoking, talented directors. Perhaps I’m missing their key films. I have only seen three John Ford movies (Rio Grande, Stagecoach & What Price Glory) and only two Hawks films (The Big Sleep & Gentleman Prefer Blondes) and wasn’t all that impressed. Please recommend a film!

Welles and Hitchcock are overrated in the extreme – RealityChuck, you and I are simply not going to agree on film.

Scorcese is definitely in: Taxi Driver & Raging Bull are superb. Goodfellas, Mean Streets & Casino are razor-sharp. I can even excuse Bringing Out the Dead, Kundun & The Color of Money (but not the godawful King of Comedy flick!)

Kubrick, if considered American, is most certainly in with 2001, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining & A Clockwork Orange.

We agree on excluding Woody Allen, at least!

11

If you can count Hitchcock as an American director then surely you would count the greatest director of all time, Billy Wilder.

Look at this - all time great dramas, classic comedies from one director. Unrivalled.

12

Billy Wilder is just amazing. He not only directed those great films, but he wrote them and produced them as well. Starting all the back in 1929, and he’s still going today.

13

Actually I just checked on IMDB for the highest rated American director and it’s Chuck Jones followed by . Interesting.

14

I heartily agree with the inclusion of Wilder - as he was one of the first true auteurs in American film. Hawks and Ford

15

Watch “The Quiet Man” and “The Searchers.” ESPECIALLY “The Searchers.”

16

John Ford recommendations: The Searchers (one of the most influential films ever made), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Fort Apache, Rio Grande, The Quiet Man, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence.

Howard Hawks recommendations: Scarface, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Red River, Big Sky. Rio Bravo, featuring the kitchy combo of John Wayne, Dean Martin, and Ricky Nelson, is one of Quentin Tarentino’s favorite movies. (I’m not sure if that counts as a recommendation.)

I’m stunned to hear Hitchcock called overrated. Every director working today is in his debt, from Scorcese and Coppola to schlockmeisters like Simon West and Michael Bay. I would venture to say that Sumac! just doesn’t care for movies made before 1960.

Lynch is certainly one of the most interesting directors out there, but his stuff doesn’t hold up well over time. Love them or hate them, the Coen Brothers eclipsed Lynch long ago in the quality and (especially) consistency of their work.

17

I admit it: I bear Lynch a huge grudge over Twin Peaks. I loved that show, I really did. I watched it faithfully and lapped up all the weirdness. I analyzed it to death. We’d discuss it by the hour the entire following week at work. (“What about the ____?” “Oh man! I forgot about that! Do you suppose …”) Then I discover they were making it up as they went along. No plan. None of that crap meant anything.

Not to mention Blue Velvet is one of the most sickening movies I’ve ever seen (and I’ve sat through Caligula more than once, if you can believe that). Someone here on the boards said it best: in that movie, you’re ashamed to even be in the same species as Dennis Hopper. I felt Isabella Rossellini was humilitated in that film.

Well anyway, for the best directors, my money’s on Coppolla (though he’s quite the egomaniac, but in directing, like surgery, I suppose that’s a good thing) and Stanley Kubric. I feel, sometimes, like I’m the only person in America who liked and somehow got Eyes Wide Shut.

And shoot me, but I think Stephen Speilburg is pretty much a genius movie-maker.

18

?!?!?!?!?!?
Add me to the list of those who disagree. Welles and Hitchcock are cinematic geniuses who not only made great films but are responsible for changing the way movies are made. Heck, how many times have you heard the phrase Hitchcockian?

Hitchcock almost single-handedly created the suspense/thriller genre. His mastery of camera technique and willingness to explore hitherto unexplored areas of the human psyche produced some of the best films ever made. Spellbound was one of the first films to explore the then controversial subject of psychiatry. His willingness to experiment and work within constraints produced films such as Rope which took place in real time, Rear Window which took place from the point of view of one character in one room and Psycho which was produced on a tiny budget with a TV crew. He made subversive movies that dealt with sexuality in ways that completely escaped the censors of the day. And most important of all, he made great entertainments and adventures that have dated very little today.

Welles deserves to be on the list for Citizen Kane alone. However, his master direction is also evident in the butchered Magnificent Ambersons, Lady of Shanghai, Othello and Touch of Evil. The dark shadows and odd angles of Othello heighten tension and those bleak shots of an empty cage at the beginning provide ominous foreshadowing. Welles’ face floating in inky blackness during a soliloquy emphasizes Othello’s isolation and paranoia. Don’t forget that the movie was filmed in bits and pieces over the course of 5 years.

The opening tracking shot in Touch of Evil is a brilliant shot that tracks a car rigged with a bomb through the crowded streets of Mexico to the US border. 6 unbroken minutes of incredible suspense. The interrogation scene in an apartment crowded with police and suspects is a wonder of careful choreography and acting.

These are just a few examples. I could go on, but I have to do some work today.

19

Thanks for the recommendations, RJ & Wumpus.

Wumpus & Hodge on Hitchcock: Now, don’t get me wrong, Hitch is a talented and competent director, no doubt. I really enjoyed Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Strangers on a Train, Vertigo, etc. – actually, now that I think about it, he IS pretty damn good. I’m probably a bit bitter because I recently re-watched The Birds and Torn Curtain and realized they were total crap. Reflecting on his canon of work, I concede he’s quite the impressive Brit.

I stand by my statement on Welles. Citizen Kane is well-made and I love the behind-the-scenes stuff and how and why it was made. I just don’t like the film itself that much. Othello and Touch of Evil didn’t impress me either. I haven’t seen the Mag Ambersons or the Lady of Shanghai, but after the other three, I’m just not interested.

You also said, “I would venture to say that Sumac! just doesn’t care for movies made before 1960.” Nay! Here’s a few I really dig: Wiene’s Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Lang’s Metropolis & M, Bunuel & Dali’s Un Chien Andalou, Bergman’s The Seventh Seal & The Virgin Spring, Kurosawa’s Rashoman, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood and I’m blanking on another German Director who has a couple of old films I like.

“…Coen Brothers eclipsed Lynch long ago…” At the box office, yes! Otherwise, no. They make shallow, fun, commercial, quirky tales devoid of real emotion or thought.

Ellen, I too was utterly disappointed with the episode-to-episode-no-greater-scheme-rip-off logic of Twin Peaks, but hey, that’s TV. Wattya expect? Blue Velvet’s a great film, sickness and all (as opposed to that Caligula nonesense). I also liked Lost Highway.

I don’t understand your claim that you’re the only person in America to “get” Eyes Wide Shut. Please tell me what you “got” because I thought it was a juvinille, out-of-touch take on jealosy with some really stinky performances from Cruise & Kidman.

“Stephen Speilburg is pretty much a genius movie-maker.” :rolleyes:

20

Don’t you roll your eyes at me, you poisonous plant! :wink: So you don’t think Steven Spielberg makes good movie? Tell me why! Show your work.

In the great tradition of movie-making and American cinema, which means entertainment now doesn’t it, Spielberg does a masterful job. Raiders of the Lost Ark is fun through and through. And shall we discuss a movie that influenced a generation? Jaws, hmm? Perhaps Spielberg isn’t cerebral enough for you? Seen Schindler’s List? Isn’t Saving Private Ryan a deeply affecting movie?

I don’t claim he’s high art or deep, necessarily. I claim he is entertaining and makes a damn fine movie. And anyway, appreciation of any form, be it literature, film, music is at heart subjective, isn’t it? I mean, we can agree on objective criteria that makes for a good movie (competent acting, a solid script), but enjoyment often depends on the taste of the viewer. A friend of mine loves idiotic romanctic comedy and tells me that if it’s panned by the critics, she’ll usually enjoy it. She doesn’t require the same things from movies I do. But anyway, I liked There’s Something About Mary, so perhaps there’s something about my taste that you’ll find fault with. :frowning:

I liked Eyes Wide Shut because it was different. It was about how things appear. It was a fun puzzle to figure out. Sue me, I like Tom Cruise. It was nice to see him stretching his acting muscle, instead of acting like muscle qualifies him as movie star. (Well, maybe it does.)