|
Post by Reba on Jan 22, 2018 13:26:48 GMT -5
well, this is definitely his most violent work yet, and it seems like about 90% of the violence is against women, for no particular reason. is misogyny a theme in every david lynch project? lots of naked women, abused women, and lingering close-ups of dead women. almost every female character is either self-obsessed, obnoxious, dumb, flirty, or a combination. most of his stuff is like that, it’s just taken to an extreme here. it’s obvious that misogyny is a theme in, like, mad men, not so much in twin peaks IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 22, 2018 19:48:21 GMT -5
i'd say domestic abuse is a theme running throughout david lynch's work, and since that's often intertwined with misogyny in real life, it figures if it also is in his work (even though you pulled that 90% out of your nose). he's gone on record that domestic violence is the thing that scares him most (i may be paraphrasing here). with mad men, misogyny is a theme on its explicit surface level, while in twin peaks, it's a theme beneath the surface level; at the latest since shelly/leo johnson's storyline happened in seasons 1 and 2 (plus the whole 'firewalk with me' movie shows its tragic presence in laura palmer's life, too).
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 22, 2018 22:25:24 GMT -5
so if domestic violence is what scares him most, he depicts it so often because he considers it a good horror element? then it's really only a 'theme' in the same way that clowns are a 'theme' in stephen king's it. the difference is that depicting misogyny requires real women to degrade themselves on-screen. the director's personal neurosis isn't really a good excuse to ask that much of actresses so often. or to ask that much of the audience; it certainly didn't feel like it was a 'subject' being 'explored' for the audience's consideration, it was just something to cringe at like any other TV violence. anyway, it wasn't just the violence, i was equally disturbed by the general characterization of women thru out, and to a certain extent, the stifling power dynamics present in many m-f interactions.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 23, 2018 1:53:38 GMT -5
nobody said he depicts violence because he simply "considers it a good horror element"; that's not the kind of filmmaker he is. lynch doesn't set out to create genre films like a christopher nolan or tarantino would, even though lots of his films could be called horror (mulholland drive, lost highway, eraserhead...). i don't even know how to address that wack stephen king's it-comparison, cos it's fundamentally wrong.
I'm gonna say the obvious in that depicting something doesn't mean it approves of it. lynch forces the audience to look at the ugly reality of abuse in the way kubrick unflinchingly depicted violence in A Clockwork Orange (and elsewhere), or the way Michael Haneke forces the audience to face humanity's dark side. you can call it a personal neurosis, you can call it an obsession, but the thing is that every artist has their obsessions and themes they keep returning to in their work again and again.
you also don't seem to understand much about acting, if you think lynch requires "real women" (actresses, who have their own artistic obsessions as to which characters they choose to portray) to "degrade themselves on-screen" (again, it's called acting--it's makebelieve).
Twin Peaks deals with the evils of mankind, it's about innocence being destroyed, a whole town being complicit of a young girl's tragic end, and it's about men inflicting violence on women. If these things make you too queasy, it's not for you.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 23, 2018 2:37:36 GMT -5
maybe he doesn't set out to create straight horror films but his style is definitely steeped in a mix of genre tropes, and i'm sure there are elements he adds for reasons as simple as tarantino.
i also think kubrick's violence is stupid and unjustified, even more so than lynch
of course no one is forced to act a scene against their will, but acting certainly goes beyond "makebelieve" in many circumstances. it requires courage to immerse yourself in graphic, intense, violent scenes, and to then display that version of yourself to the world. i think it's an insult to the actor for the director to constantly require that sort of performance, and then use that content frivolously. sure, evils of mankind, etc... i guess my main problem is that i don't buy into the alleged philosophical depth of twin peaks, then. btw i don't mean to imply i didn't like the show. it was insane, and i had a great time. but i enjoyed it like i enjoy lynch's other work, from an angle of pure stylization.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jan 23, 2018 10:26:49 GMT -5
sure, it's definitely informed by genre tropes. especially 'the return' had quite many subtle (and less subtle) references to other films (elsewhere, to magritte paintings as well), and several of them to kubrick films. if that's your view on kubrick's use of violence, i guess there's a simple mismatch of standards between some filmmakers' and your ethics of movie violence.
i'm not denying that some acting roles require courage and immersing yourself into disturbing subjects. but so are other art forms: writing, photography, even directing, or other jobs like news reporting. all basically driven to get to a better understanding of humanity. you're wrong about it being an insult to an actor, not least because the actors get a script beforehand to see what is required for the role.
a big part of what lynch does is surrealism (though not exclusive to), dealing with the subconscious and following an intuitive dream-like logic. you can call it stylization, while i'd say that that's a gross misrepresentation. to me, tarantino's films are much closer to the type of film you refer to (esp. considering their use of violence, which must be even more "stupid and unjustified" to you), without meaning to deride them.
i say twin peaks and other lynch projects wouldn't work at all like they do, without there being a philosophical core and deeper themes being dealt with. 'the return's infamous ep.8, with its shot of the atom bomb is a seminal moment in how the show's about what makes people want to destroy, and I'm sorry you missed out on all that.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on Jan 23, 2018 12:42:36 GMT -5
yeah, i'd say surrealism is pure stylization. it challenges the audience's expectations by presenting one-sided metaphors, images that seem to beg for interpretation when they really don't "mean" anything more than a dream. the images lynch uses are definitely intuitive, including, i believe, everything in episode 8. of course i'm not as cinematically literate as you, and i'm not super motivated to investigate this elusive subtext, so maybe i'll be less quick to question lynch's possible prejudices from now on. of course i'm not totally convinced he is a misogynist, it's just a question that came to my mind repeatedly as i watched s3.
also, tarantino's use of violence isn't really comparable, as the violence itself is mostly stylized with cartoonish special effects. though i'm not a fan of it either. basically i hate everything.
|
|
|
Post by Esmé's meme is meh on May 31, 2019 23:22:32 GMT -5
R.I.P. Norma
|
|
|
Post by Liam R. Findlay on Jun 3, 2019 4:21:28 GMT -5
Just realised where I'd seen Leland before.
|
|