Subject: Re: Some "Sirius" criticism (Help me refute it!) [LONG]
From: johnatwe@midiline.la.ca.us (John atwell)
Date: 1991-10-18, 23:43
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

Roar.Larsen@termo.unit.no (Roar Larsen) writes:

> > Here in Norway there exists a (generally very good!) magazine dedicated to 
> > speculative fiction (Science Fiction, Fantasy, etc.) which is called 
~Tkw7`~YwoPG'E*;_oMtuWRemOnrwx;`[_lrt
> > specifically, and David Lynch in general. The article is somewhat negative 
[Stuff deleted by John Atwell]
> > 
> > Exerpts from the article follow, my comments are in [brackets]:
> > 
> > _The fantastic DAVID LYNCH - a postmodernistic charlatan?_
> > by Jostein Saakvitne.
> > For those familiar with fantastic movies, the supernatural motifs and the 
> > use of them, will not be very new. Thematically, it is all about the 
> > eternal fight between good and evil, and the motif of being posessed by 
> > evil/the devil etc. This has been presented more elegantly through e.g. 
> > "The Shining" and countless other movies made through the years.
 
[My comment: IYHO, you mean.  And what does he mean by elegant?  The 
theme of good and evil in mankind is a very popular one to take up, but 
Lynch/Frost does it on TV in a decidedly NON-HOLLYWOOD way...that is to 
say NOT slick or "elegant".  Crafted, yes...but not through use of tried 
and true hollywood "formulas" (at least not usually)].
> > 
> > [stuff deleted]
> > 
> > We neeed to ask whether our demands for "good" use of fantastic elements 
> > have been met, like:
> > - having the good old "sense of wonder" present
> > - it being a filmatically "correct" element, being supported by other 
> >   dramaturgical effects in a movie
> > - that the elements fit naturally with descriptions of persons and 
> >   atmosphere.
> > With regard to these demands, our good friend Lynch does not get very high 
> > marks! We register a lot of "empty" use of effects for their own sake, and 
> > repetitions without any real purpose. It looks like he is more interested 
> > in breaking the bounds of a genre and finding an outlet for his own 
> > egotrips in a pattern that no director before him has had the courage (or 
> > economic/artistic freedom) to do...

To this I respond: I believe Lynch is trying to do things with images 
that haven't been done before.  Yes, the writer is right that he is 
trying to break the bounds of a genre.  Thus, he sometimes fails 
spectacularly.  By fails, I mean that Lynch sets himself a task as a 
screenwriter that he is not able to bring off as a director.  But Lynch 
is always fascinating for me to watch, because when he succeeds, he 
succeeds brilliantly.  The feelings I felt after the Maddy murder scene 
are hard to put into words.  And this is as it should be - Lynch is 
working on the axiom tha{, if you can put it into words, why film it?  
The power of film, the power of the image in and of itself, is one of the 
things that Lynch is exploring - but not the only thing.
> > 
> > We cheer enthusuiastically the first times, but later it is more like 
> > trying to hide a yawn. [stuff deleted] Neither the Log Lady , Bob himself 
> > or the motif of the two lodges is developed in a particularly interesting 
> > manner. We just wait and wait for something to happen...
> > 
> > [stuff deleted]
> > 
> > I have now finally seen the longed-for final episode as well [the two-hour 
> > "finale" was shown as two separate "ordinary" episodes over here], and it 
> > was disappointing in all its pretentiousness! Our poor agent Cooper 
> > running from drape to drape in a sort of near-death-experience room, and 
> > being submitted to David Lynch's special apocalyptic view of "the final 
> > showdown". All in a sort of quasi-symbolic picture-language not very 
> > suited to engage neither those who where already interested nor more 
> > accidental viewers. We get a strong feeling that Lynch is running a very 
> > private show, where he in principle could have introduced any elements and 
> > characters he wanted, and still received happy applause from his 
> > cult-viewers.
> > 
> > The postmodernistic charlatan
> > [stuff deleted] .. he grabs onto different styles and artistic expressions 
> > from other epochs and artists, to make these his own, and mix them 
> > uncritically in a big pot filled with images and motifs. Lynch knows that 
> > the time is ripe for just this kind of experimenting in TV series, as 
> > music videos have been doing for years. [stuff deleted] The fantastic 
> > elements are therefore just a tool used by Lynch to make himself 
> > interesting! [stuff deleted]

First off, Lynch was doing that sort of thingong before MTV was (see      
Eraserhead, which was filmed between 1973-1978).  Lynch is certainly 
trying to please himself, but only as much as any director does, by 
making a good show.  Lynch does use borrowed techniques, but to new 
purpose.  Lyh/F take the view that plots do not necessarily have to be 
linear, IMHO.  This and the stated fact that Twin Peak "is about secrets" 
lead the filmmakers to all kinds of admittedly bizarre results.  But I 
believe that this is in the spirit of such literary works as Ulysses by 
James Joyce, who wrote each chapter in a technique that served to 
illustrate what the main theme of the chapter was.  The results were 
sometimes not great, but more often than n, the succeeded.  I believe 
(paraphrasing a quote by Roman Polanski) that David Lynch is the only 
American director with a distinct vision.And while I am grateful for 
every second of Twin Peaks, I am sure that David Lynch is capable of even 
greater works in the future.  Anyone who trusts his imagination like 
David Lynch does is bound to succeed artistically (if NOT monetarily).