11 Comments

1. May 25th, 2011 / 9:10 pm postitbreakup—

   wow, awesome, i’d heard about this but never gotten a chance to see it, thanks.

   i think as a series this would have “failed” more epically than twin peaks did, though.  god i wish at least some series would be allowed to wrap up in 6-15 episodes like in britain instead of every single show being pushed to the limits for the possibility of syndication.

2. May 26th, 2011 / 1:23 am M. Kitchell—

   I had an old barely watchable VHS bootleg of this I had traded for in high school.  Hella memories y’all.

3. May 26th, 2011 / 3:13 am deadgod—

   not an exclusionary “vs.”, but didion

   not close

4. May 26th, 2011 / 5:46 am Lincoln Michel—

   This fact always bums me out because the first two thirds of Mulholland Drive are amazing, but the tacked-on ending kinda blows. Would have been one of the best TV shows ever. 

5. May 26th, 2011 / 4:27 pm Matthew Simmons—

   didion v. lynch, deadgod votes to prosecute

   (Just noticed that I went and backwarded Mark’s set-up.)

6. May 26th, 2011 / 6:48 pm deadgod—

   “to prosecute”?

   not an exclusive winner/loser khantest – one has both, no?

   – but, to play the parlor game:

   He might not actually be trying, but – to me – Lynch communicates unsuccessfully effortful weirdness.  Fluent, fun flix, but not close to Didion’s essays, which are as good as occasional, short-form non-fiction gets.

   (probably not understanding ‘prosecution’)

7. May 26th, 2011 / 6:58 pm deadgod—

   ach; do you mean the form Prosecutor v. Defendant

   and you had and corrected – I don’t remember – “Lynch vs. Didion”

   if so, then, here, probably:  Plaintiff v. Defendant (because it’s a ‘complaint’ rather than a ‘crime’)

   — I was thinking more bout/race/bowl/64-square match

8. May 26th, 2011 / 7:01 pm Matthew Simmons—

   Sure, one has both. Comment was just funning on “v” vs. “vs.”. In which case Didion would be the one what brungs the case.

   (The period was an oversight.)

   (I like how this looks: .”.)

   To you, is he unsuccessfully effortfully weird? Or unsuccessfully effortlessly weird and, without meaning to be successfully effortfully weird. (In his statements.)

9. May 26th, 2011 / 7:24 pm deadgod—

   ha – got it

   To me, the weirdness is effortful – he says ‘not’; I speak of ‘seems’ – , which is not necessarily a defect (in Ulysses the work is plenty visible, in Kubrick, in Ingres and Cezanne, in Milton, and so on), but, in Lynch’s movies, the sense of ‘effort’ somewhat drags, fluent though they be.

   – but I see that the competition or case is made verbal excerpt “vs.” verbal excerpt — not ‘her best writing’ “vs.” ‘his movies’. 

   So I failed meta.  Bah.

   His “statements” are clever and fun in a loose-gripped way.  But, for the priority of (fictive or easily deconstructed) profundity, even in a sentence or paragraph, I choose – back-vs.-wall – Auntie Joan.

10. May 26th, 2011 / 7:44 pm Matthew Simmons—

    I’m interested in this “fluency” and “effort” distinction in your comments here. I, at first, might think that one could not have both: showing effort takes away from one’s fluency. But I think I’m am overly simplifying what you mean by “fluent,” I believe*. Fluent, maybe, in the language of film making? In framing a shot and pacing a “story.” (“Story” used loosely here, because, man oh man, does Lynch use it loosely.) Is that what you mean? And then, effort on display in the tone?

    Beyond that, though, yes. I’d rather read Didion.

    * Possibly I am letting my metaphor-mind run away with it. I imagine how much effort I put into my first-year Japanese pronunciation, and how my slow torturous journey from syllable to syllable just ruined my fluency.

11. May 26th, 2011 / 9:59 pm deadgod—

    Yes, for fluency:  “pacing”, (as a matter of technique) ‘whatever contributes to or impedes the flow’.  Handling the actors, shaping the scene with montage, moving from scene to scene.  Mulholland Drive (the movie) is strongest in my memory:  think of Watts’s transformation at the audition, or inside/outside-the-house movement that gets us through the temporal-wormhole transitions.

    “Tone” isn’t quite right for the oddness-for-its-own-sake, but it’ll do. 

    Thinking about how nicely he manages set-pieces, I’m about to change my mind about being dissatisfied with . . . something – or at least not to be satisfied with  being inarticulate.  Consistency-fail; bah.