Mr. Reindeer wrote:The black box "reveal" is a very overt moment that even the most inattentive viewer will spot. It pretty much hits us over the head. I'm not sure that that particular example is the best support for your apparent assertion that there is some hidden key we have to unlock in the work.
Ever since Eraserhead, DKL has generally been opposed to saying there is one definitive interpretation of his work, and Sabrina Sutherland also stated on her AMA Reddit that DKL feels all/most fan theories are valid. Not that he doesn't plant clues -- MD has the ashtray and the pillows, and TP S3 has the Sarah/Jumping Man mashup and the (maybe-)intentional glitches. Theorizing is great. But I really don't think we're going to arrive at the One True Interpretation ever.
I agree. It's basically the old
"Death of the Author" concept - that has roots as ancient as Plato's criticism of writing (in his "Phaidros"). Lynch, like most surrealists, embraces that idea: If you can't hope to transmit your own intention through your work, at least not without damaging it severely, you have two options:
A) You don't try to send complex messages, but instead present clear and (more importantly) distinct facts, that won't get lost or too diluted. When you do this, you don't give the reader/viewer much room for interpretation, but you also cannot efficiently get your ideas across - it tends to get very verbose, overloaded and hard to follow. Good academic (scientific or philosophical) works should (to some extend) use this techniques - but still not neglect style (a hard balance act, most don't accomplish this).
B) You don't try to get any facts across, but begin to intentionally destroy your ideas while writing them down: You do this by abstaction, overbearing style, valueing formal (technical) aspects over plot, adding "mystery", leaving things unexplained, ... and so on.
The risk in this is that readers/viewers might find your work incomprehensible, obtruse and lacking focus (mmh, where have I heard these criticisms before?) .
That is, in my view, what makes art art. Even the most "realist" wiriters use sylistic tropes that work this way (e.g. metaphores and symbolism).
Obviously, Lynch mostly goes with option B. But he is not above using option A to get some basic facts across - who would have forseen we'd get a long and plain explanation of what Judy is. What is notable is that Lynch, contrary to most authors, tends not to mix both approaches into one way of writing that he would consistenty keep throughout his works, but opts to alternate between the two extremes: one moment giving us all we need to know, the next giving us an allegory we can't penetrate with the knowledge we now have.
I like this style, but I get why many find it frustrating. It does mean that, yes, there is no one valid interpretation: Because of the "Death of the Author" there can't be (and any author who thinks there can, even in a scientific text, is delusional). The text/film/painting/music/work has to stand on its own and the consumer will oppose it with his own agenda.
But with great authors, there usually is not even and intent for thier work to have that one interpretation. They design their work with the premise in mind, that every interpretation can be successful and their own interpretation is not any more "right" or "fitting" than any other's.