Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Deserves it's own thread.
the bit where it's really tense, and then nothing happens for ages, and then one of the rabbits says something
You were a right cunt to Charlie Sheen
But think of all those real chickens whose blushes you spared.
You'll say anything to get custody of the kids you despicable harpy.
That's right. I LIKE Two and a Half Men.
AND you stubbornly refused to get your tits out in Starship Troopers
Why is that soooooooo creepy?
that people-sized rabbits are cinema short-hand for sinister?
from mythology, like.
although it's probably more to do with a lot of film makers being big fans of Harvey (as well they might be, it's ace)
Pookahs most definitely are.
But the reason people-sized rabbits appear a lot is probably to do with Harvey. I reckon. I might be wrong.
you do know Harvey was a Pookah, right?
But not really.
I probably shouldn't be watching that before I go to bed, but I <3 Lynch.
The 9th episode is in Inland Empire.
Anyone seen it yet?
mindblowing stuff, it is.
isn't showing in cardiff.
so pissed off.
God, I loved this film. It's still 'with' me now.
when there was only 3 there
my interesting observation
I have to watch this film again to go over a lot of that minute deetail... He's the King of Detail, that man is.
but I think so
Have no idea what it means but that's hardly the point
A fourth shadow..?
Out of interest, do you think you "understood" the film, or that it at least made sense to you? Can't say I did.
I think about an hour made conventional sense but then after that I didn't understand much at all. Saying that I don't think it matters because what I love in Lynch is the bizarre imagery, the sounds, the atmosphere he generates. Plot is usually very much secondary.
My own interpretation, of course. It did help to talk about it afterwards and realise that there were three narratives within this film.. a whole heap of sub plots, and of course, some completely indulgent Lynch moments.
The Rabbits were a commentary on society as a whole.. how we are effectively trapped into conformist ideals and conditioning by television and what is preached at us... a bit like 'battery hens' but in this instance, rabbits reflecting the darkest corner of our minds...
So a fourth shadow is interesting in that that could be the very 'darkest' point of our brains... Rabbits representing our inner conscious streams and thoughts.
I'm still forumlating an entire opinion on this and thinking of the film as only saw it last night but this is where I see it stemming towards.
I'd actually really like to watch and research more about the entire rabbit series and write about it.
I fekin' loved them.
I want pictures of them for my bedroom - the colours would work nicely.
The canned laughter representing futher societal conditioning... how we are supposed to think and feel - how television has mushed and numbed our brains. Almost a comment on reality tv... what is reality? What is TV? Where do the lines blurr, stop, and so forth...
I can't go on and the above is a bit of free flow but I think I totaly got where Lynch was coming from with this. I mean, look at teh start of the film - the talk show.
In a sense, he is giving a bit WANK UP to Hollywood and the entire industry. Brave. Commendable. And as a result won't earn him an Oscar although the entire film should be awarded this accolade.
I bet it does well at Sundance.
It seemed like a superficially bizarre but conversely even more effective and far less cliched way of commenting on brain-dead television. Beyond the obvious of just using scenes of a really bad hyper-real sitcom, all massive smiles and day-glo faces.
The film was incredibly effective at questioning barriers between film and reality etc. It seems like an incerdibly obvious mechanism but I haven't seen it often handled so well. I especially liked the scene where Laura Dern "died" and then although you realised it was being filmed, she didn't get up for quite a while so you were questioning whether she had actually died in the film.
"I have a cousin in Pomino who has a pet monkey and she wears a blonde wig, and even the girls fall in love with her... She has a hole in her vagina that goes through to her intestines..."
The symbolism behind the language (vagina - new life, intestines - expelling waste, and the fact that there is a HOLE and missing gap where new life begins... leading to a waste land of sorts (the intestines) and despair... ) The overall portrayal of women...
This film FUCKING RULZ.
I'm going to watch it again.
Me too. One day.
(probably a stupid question, showing my inattentiveness)
did she step briefly into the "rabbit" set at one point, or was that just my imagination? I think it was around the point I ran out of sweets and my attention wandered to thinking about blue and pink cola bottles and little skulls full of red blood stuff.
but whether the rabbit set was reality, or the far corners of her brain, are up to the viewers interrpretation. I'm going with the latter.
FUCK THIS FILM ROCKS.
TWO GREAT NEW DISCOVERIES IN TWO DAYS. THIS FILM and AGASKODO TELIVEREK...
What a cool weekend.
when she went through the door marked 47. You didn't see her and the rabbits in the same shot, though.
It was projection.. ya know?
but the rabbits really are just out of the blue. Are they abject symbolism? Wanton surrealism? Willfully meaningless? Added for extra macabre atmosphere?
They are the spanner in the works. Perhaps that's their exact function. The film is, after all, about film making as much as anything else.
I'm not that keen on categorical statements like "The rabbits were HER" when it comes to Lynch's films - it feels too much like trying to decipher and pin something which doesn't have a single interpretation or meaning, when there are so many different and equally valid ways of watching/enjoying/understanding the film.
So if you ask me "Are they abject symbolism? Wanton surrealism? Willfully meaningless? Added for extra macabre atmosphere?" I'd say: Yes, all of the above, and probably more besides.
This isn't a dig, Rose, just a difference of opinion.)
I enjoy this discussion.. I make opinions and then change my own mind a few seconds later..
I don't know.
For a split second I felt like it was projection - it WAS her...
The terrifyingly creepy clown was her too.
This IS Lynch we are talking about.
That shot was horrific. I nearly screamed.
that Lynch made, which I think is what you watched on YouTube. But the rabbits also appear as part of his new film "Inland Empire", which is what's being discussed herre.
an extra episode is included in "Inland Empire".
DO YOU SEE NOW?
Loved the physical effects, weird visual phenomena, the lights
There was a bit where she runs at the camera with a weird smile on and I laughed a little
With the spotlight?
The blood!! The blood!!! The blood from her MOUTH!!!
Clowns are totally THE MOST terrifying things ever, anyhoo... The simultaneous jump of the audience who were all a bit sleepy by that point was kinda cool, tho...
and then she moved fast with the weird creaky sound effects and it suddenly became scary very quickly
because you can take a sort of absolutist interpretation if you want and make it make sense for you. Like you though Joe I think I prefer to not pin certain meanings on things and let the film gnaw away at me without ever really "understanding" it (beyond basic plot stuff of which there wasn't a great deal here)
I think Blue Velvet shall be dug out at some point very very soon (sighs at thought of Kyle MacLachlan)
I also think it's made me want to see more films with visual weirdness going on, sort of like the filmic equivalent of 70's freak-out rock. Any recommendations?
Things like Jodorowsky and the Tetsuo films.
whoa man, FREAKKY
got lots of weird cartoons
just lying beneath the surface.
is why every time in a David Lynch film a bloke is warned off sleeping with an attached woman, EVERY TIME he will fuck her anyway.
and whores. to use his language.
his portrayal of women is quite something, really, when you look at his catalogue of work.
either incredibly innocent and naive, or quite sluttish.
the man has conviction when it comes to that, i have to say.
and 'Catholic Guilt'
Only have tinternet at work , and 8 mins is a bit too long :(
and fell asleep. I feel guilty
I want to know too. I don't think it's a cause for shame, though.
Three questions! Um, Eraserhead at Hyde Park cinema, was good, and I only fell asleep for about ten minutes.
To be fair, I had very little sleep the night before, and the red bull was starting to go thin...
I think watching it in a complete daze added to the effect. The cinema screen mad ethe visuals stunning too. Otherwise, I though it was a little meh, have I just created DiS/respectable-film-fan suicide?
and nobody's that quick to judge. Especially not me, as I haven't actually seen Eraserhead.
There are some films that almost benefit from a sleepy mood and a sense of concentration that's not quite as sharp as it could be. I was pretty tired when I saw Hidden, and I think that's part of the reason it had such a profound emotional effect on me - because I was less able to follow it with my conscious brain, if that makes sense.
You need more Michael Haneke in your life.
But anyway what do you mean you haven't seen Eraserhead? Joe, you are worthless, you are less than nothing. Anyway, I should lend it to you
but if you lend it me I promise to watch it.
I can't find it though. Maybe it went the way of my Hellraiser box set (ie nicked or lost). Have you seen the Piano Teacher or Funny Games though, I ahve found those?
Funny Games is very good. As is Time of the Wolf.
it is just very very depressing
Funny Games is brilliant. I haven't seen Time of the Wolf
You're wrong, you festering clusterfuck seepage
slippery little whelp.
if you like it so much why don't you just go and fucking marry it then, don't come crying to me when it all turns to shit
She'd be a mental wife whho stabbed herself but hopefully as a well respected Piano Teacher she'd at least have some life insurance.
I saw Inland Empire last night. I hated it.
Out of interest, would you consider yourself a Lynch fan?
WHY did you hate it?
(he is responsible for the Crappuccino video!)
Many reasons but mostly Laura Dern
But LAURA DERN?
I thought she was AMAZING in it.
EXPLAIN with your 911 death post.
I think it is probably irrational and has no baring on the film as a whole really but I have hated her since that scene in Jurassic Park where she is leaning on her knee and shouting 'Run' to herself, it really bugged the hell out of me.
Additionally though I was in no mood to sit and analyse every image thrown at me and this inevitably rendered me very bored. I had already read about the idea of three seperate interwoven plots so the fun was taken out in that respect.
The only fun I had was counting links to Seinfeld
I didn't read too much about it on purpose.. BUT... I first saw laura dern in Blue Velvet so she is engrained in my head forever in that role (BRILLIANT FILM - WHOO HOO).
How many Seinfeld references?
Damn I loved that programme too...
I was totally in the mood for peering into the darkest corners of my brain when I saw it on Sunday so it worked very very well for me. I couldn't imagine sitting and watching it in any other mental state, to be frank... I was in a LYNCH MOOD.
I was definatly not in the mood.
As for Seinfeld connections, Mr Pitt played Laura Dern's Butler, George's fiance's mother played the neighbour (but she was Mrs Palmer first). There were more but they have escaped from my head
but still didn't find it remotely boring. I would say I was just revelling in the atmosphere and some of the imagery and letting it wash over me. There was enough going on to keep it interesting I thought.
I thought it was a great performance, irrespective of what one's feelings were on the rest of the film.
I didn't question her once, not a flickr of doubt in her performance. Most times, during a film, I will notice the actor's performance - notice them trying to convey something as naturally as possible but failing. With her, It was all brilliant, I found her completely absorbing and believable. EXCEPT in the bits where she was supposed to be acting! She was even acting well playing an average actress playing a role!
But agree with your sentiment.
(that busta rhymes)
GO ON SWAYZE (I think he is crafting his response now as it's taking him time to reply...)
so I'll come back later.
Bye for now.
As I would expect given that she's an extremely good actress. I just didn't feel that it was a "stand-out" performance and wouldn't be one of the first things I would rush to praise about the film. It just felt like Lynch's ideas and the atmosphere consumed the film (me) to the extent that the actors were just tools in that overall vision and didn't have their own "presence" particularly. I'm not explaining this well...
(see also Hitchcock's comments that actors are cattle, and should be treated like cattle). But sometimes if an actor's work doesn't serve the director's vision, a film can go off half-cocked, especially if it's a central performance. For instance, Jeremy Irons was barely noticeable, and that's as it should be. But you spend so long watching Laura Dern that you can't help but notice how good she is - even if it only strikes you after the film's ended.
See: Bill Pullman in Lost Highway.
Strongly disagree. I liked Pullman in that. Just the right level of blankness.
way to "cuddly" to be this hip gyrating saxophonist. It was too incongruous to be believable. For me.
That's the nail in the coffin of my argument. Consider me learned.
Three strikes, and he's outta there. I didn't think his persona was that cuddly (certainly not in Lost Highway), but obviously there's evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't think of him that way, though.
Also: Spaceballs! A LOL Supreme.
but I only really notice an acting performance that is markedly bad (or the converse). I thought she was good but not outstanding. I haven't seen Lost Highway (I think the only Lynch film I haven't seen) so I can't comment on that.
I absolutely agree that a poor performance of a main character can be ruinous but there was little danger of that happening as she is very talented and has worked with him a lot before.
I don't agree that it was a great or amazing performance though as mostly she just looked and stared. She did that well though, with her lovely equine face.
just read it somewhere (guardian review maybe)