Some think DV looks great some think it looks shit. Both camps have been arguing this in hundreds of threads on different boards. It really is a matter of personal preference & opinion. I can only speak for myself and I love the look of it. I am glad that there are directors such as Lynch in this world who are willing to take a risk by embracing new technology rather than play it safe.

-- Gerry

the black dog runs at night

-- Gerry

the black dog runs at night

I mostly agree with you. The only reason I will see this film is because Lynch directed it and because the cast is awesome (maybe the scenery, too). But it's a downhill movement for his career now with this movie, because frankly I believe that Mulholland Dr. was the highest top and now it will be really hard to hit that perfection again (and I'm meaning perfection in style - I know some people hate it, but they can't deny the great visual effort he put in it). Moreover, it mostly goes that way for almost each director. After a movie that was succesfull and great for its cinematographic depth, they only managed to create replicas of it and other previous works, maybe varying in the style, occasionally failing... some times they just change style and it goes way better (look at Woody Allen, now he's practically an English naturalized film-maker because only british companies are willing to produce his films). So it's really hard to tell. All I know is that Lynch works outside the Hollywood system, he is a sort of financial underdog (no offense), so even though he's got great ideas, I think he isn't lucky enough to get his films financed by an independent and rich producer (or a row of them, if needed) falling from the sky like precious snow. I got really heartbroken when he categorically announced that he's through with film.  I know that it's good to experiment the new means, but a superlative artist like Lynch should not ever give up the traditional way of making a film because yes it's heavy, slow and expensive but it renders his ideas soooo much better!

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Lynch was on Metropolis (Arte) yesterday : http://youtube.com/watch?v=-kSAno05TMI

This is in french though.

Dave is coming here to San Rafael Jan. 19 with the picture and I will get to see it then. Will comment here more later.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Letsroque, you got me all wrong!

I didn't say Lynch found a good excuse for finishing this project as a thing initially meant to air on the net exclusively. I would have not minded at all, at a similar condition.

I replied so because what Neff said sounds to me like a pure excuse for David Lynch's work. That's all. And you never excuse someone else, because you can't possibly be aware of what is really going on with him. If I had seen the film and then made an interview with David Lynch, I'm sure he wouldn't have answered me that way. I don't know how he would answer, because he's so incredibly unpredictable and he's a poet. He probably would have answered talking about the way the wind blew that night he was shooting Laura in that certain spot of the location... and so on.

I'm not mad. I want to make this clear. I'm just sick of all this people who try to relate his works with things that, in my opinion, are only sideway notes that don't add nothing consistent to the finished final work. Like the thing with MD, that it was meant to be a series. Well, he got rejected by ABC and he changed totally the purpose. That's the most blatant example of the way everyone should look at any kind of art form. Like a book, you don't need to know anything about the author or related facts to appreciate its content.

I know this matter could be a potential starter for new arguments. Many people don't agree with this formalist kind of philosophy, but I'm with it, totally, since the day I was able to talk sense (if there's any sense to the words we say).

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

Can you see the flaw in that logic, Mr Silencio? I am not trying to make you feel bad or look stupid, I'm simply pointing out that your posts may not be read and interpreted by other people in the way that you intended them to be read or interpreted.

Yes, but isn't art a personal experience in any case? I mean, for both the author and the audience. There are no absolute truths. Okay, now I'm getting a little exhausted.

The real reason people don't understand what I say in my posts is that I'm not able to argue for so much long. I have to be more concise. That's where I'm good... Ok, just forgive me for being hysterical. It's not a good moment, I got a lot of examinations at the university these days.

"Did they scoff the whole damn Smörgåsbord?" (Audrey) 

"Gimme a donut!" (Coop)

 Absolutely, just so long as you understand that if IE "fails" for you, that reaction may be specific to you, due to your expectations. It's all a question of the language you use - if you insert the phrase "in my opinion" somwhere in your sentences, you can say almost anything, but if you're going to say stuff like "I don't want this one to fail, but I'm afraid it will..." you are likely to draw criticism, because your choice of words suggests that you are in possession of the "absolute truth" of the matter, which by your own admission, is impossible. Hope this helps.

Good luck with your exams my friend....

I dont want to offend any particular people, but I've noticed that here, in my community on LJ, and other places, there are people who are seriously making , well, stupid assumptions about SOMETHING THEY HAVENT EVEN SEEN. It bothers me that all this negative press about t he film originates from people with nothing to base it on. And this has been going on for the past two years ever since the announcement of IE.

 I dont want to draw this argument on, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Let's all be patient, shall we? And as I've said before, IE is not what it appears to be... ; )

This would look good on your wall.

-Noah- 

I dont want to offend any particular people, but I've noticed that here, in my community on LJ, and other places, there are people who are seriously making , well, stupid assumptions about SOMETHING THEY HAVENT EVEN SEEN. It bothers me that all this negative press about t he film originates from people with nothing to base it on. And this has been going on for the past two years ever since the announcement of IE.

I dont want to draw this argument on, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Let's all be patient, shall we? And as I've said before, IE is not what it appears to be... ; )

As Roque said, I'm suprised at the lack of exciemtnet here about the film. There is some, but why all this negativity?

This would look good on your wall.

-Noah- 

Qualification: you're half right. It's expressing a personal fear about an absolute outcome ("it will"). Making the statement truly personal would require Mr S to write something like "I'm afraid it will not work for me in the way that other Lynch films have", whereas what he says is essentially "I'm afraid it will fail", which, like I said before, implies an absolute outcome, which is impossible for the reasons already stated by Mr S (there are no absolute truths). Hope this clarifies things.

I'm also slightly surprised at some of the negativity from people who have yet to see the movie.
 

Well I have read lots of reviews of it and I can honestly say I have never been so excited at the prospect of a film.