Subject: Re: Lynch's Failure From: hist1261@waikato.ac.nz Date: 1992-07-19, 16:08 Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks In article , jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes: > > David Lynch may be an artistic genius, but his handling of television > > has been pitiful. > > > > His basic failure vis television is to attach his name to a series > > which he does not maintain direct artistic (directorial and > > screen-writing) control over. In so doing, he betrays his audience > > and himself. He would be much better advised to pursue much more > > limited projects, such as films and mini-series, under his own control. > > > > -- > > INTERNET: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) > > UUCP: ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim > > NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115 Perhaps, but there is a precedent: Alfred Hitchcock. I think the master only directed about eight episodes of the television programmes that bore his name, and despite his rather ridiculous introductions he only maintained nominal control over their content. Hitchcock also leant his name to those infamous "Three Investigator" books, and numerous mystery anthologies that had nothing to do with his career. Despite the dubious quality of these projects, the mere fact that the director's name was constantly before the public was arguably of benefit to his reputation (the old adage of "there's no such thing as bad publicity"). The decerning audience can usually ascertain the extent of the auteur's involvement (did anyone really think Hitch knew Jupiter Jones?).