Page 4 of 6

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:00 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:30 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:52 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:24 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:57 am
by harmolodic
barryconvex wrote:Sorry to be so honest, but your postings are far too vague and there are too many mistakes and worst of all you mix your own thoughts with someone else's throughout:
"I was bored (not born) before I even began."
(The Smiths)

Why introduce Scorsese as someone whose films all deal with history and then switch on to After Hours which clearly isn't?

I doubt Nochimson and Chion have really anything revealing to say about Lynch.


Leo's posts are great and thought-provoking, even if they are unfocused. And Nochimson and Chion have produced some of the best criticism on Lynch available. I've read, and have written on, the entire body of literature. Why make a statement like that when you clearly haven't read them?

...

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:32 am
by eyeboogers
that said it seemed like Leo was trying pretty darned hard to connect the plot in Inland Empire to everything else Lynch has ever produced. I thought the posts started out interesting but ended up somewhere beyond the realm of over analyzing. Though certain things fit thematically each film is it's own thing.

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:08 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:27 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:16 am
by snikgrif
There are some good ideas on IE at these sites,

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/?p=1367

http://thoughtsonstuff.blogspot.com/200 ... ewing.html

http://cinemathematics.blogspot.com/200 ... charm.html

I like the end of Brian Holcomb's review were he states...

'Like an abstract painting, what you see in the movie is more a reflection of who you are than what the film is really about. That's why films like "INLAND EMPIRE"can be watched over and over again, year after year. As you mature and change, so do the films. They never completely give up their secrets, mostly because those secrets are really your own.'

.... interesting thought.

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:01 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:52 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:03 am
by harmolodic
hey Leo check your PMs.

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:24 am
by LeoFaraon
~

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:45 am
by barryconvex
LeoFaraon wrote:Well, that's what Zizek would say about Nochimson's reading of Lynch.

This concession must be made to the 'New Age' commentators (for instance, Martha P. Nochimson)


Yes, that is exactly it. As for Michel Chion: He is first and foremost an admirer of David Lynch, I'm not claiming that is awful, but it's just a fact that's hard to deny.

(And I do believe I know what I'm talking about when it comes to literature about Lynch. Anne Jerslev's writing would be the first I'd recommend.)

Well, Zizek said that Lynch talks like an idiot so he might not be first choice to mix with the other commentators.

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:57 pm
by Annie
OK, boys, enough debating. This board is for entertainment and we don't want any feelings hurt. Some of you need to take a break and let's not quote other boards so extensively.

We're talking about movies, not writing magazine or college essays. Please try and limit the length of your posts.