It's Lonely Being Lynch.
The new documentary "Lynch" reveals so much about the man and his methods without pretending to understand him. I have been very disappointed by many of the reviews of this film it seems the reviewers were expecting a different movie and were frustrated they were not seeing the film they imagined or hoped to see. V.A. Musetto writes, "Provides little new insight into Inland Empire". Was it supposed to? Variety complained, "like the feature it loosely chronicles, has no immediately discernible through line and a wide variety of video-image densities". Again, this sounds less like criticism and more like complaining. The Village Voice, "Much of this is tedious -- no more or less exciting than surveillance-cam footage of a regional sales manager." Expecting excitement seems to be the failure here. And most obtuse of all is Ken Fox's review, "anyone looking for a general overview of the director will do better looking elsewhere." Again this presumes that "Lynch" should have been a general overview, when it wasn't meant to be. All of these criticisms sound like blaming an elephant for not being a Zebra.
The documentary does assume the audience is already familiar with Lynch, his work and specifically, Inland Empire. I think it would be a fantastic companion piece for the DVD release of Inland Empire.
I found the film incredibly illuminating and I have been an avid fan of Lynch's for the past 20 years. I have always respected his refusal to explain things and resistance to simple symbolism. So I didn't expect the film to offer any insight into a man who is so famously inscrutable. But the filmmakers did it right they simply present the viewers with various vignettes of the man at work and in various moods: joyous, contemplative, angry, frustrated, depressed and inspired. But throughout the work something else emerged about the man: It's Lonely Being Lynch. The man is a slave to his creative urges and it makes little room for close personal relationships. The frustration this causes is palpable and it suddenly hit me that THIS is the source of that peculiar haunted anxiety that typifies what we all now call "Lynchian". There is a scene in "Lynch" where he stands in an abandoned factory and yells into the cold cavernous space, "Sally! Do you remember me?" over and over. It's funny at first but the more he yells the more desperate it sounds and finally haunting, "Lynchian". He can fill even a candid moment such as a sound check with so many layers of meaning and emotion he seems more like a conjurer. The filmmakers knew to let the moment go for a long time to let the ghosts emerge. I knew then and there this filmmaker really knew this was the only way to make a portrait of the man.
Some people have complained that the film is not chronological enough. It is critical that it isn't. To arrange these vignettes into chronological order would create a sense of narrative and causation This doc must avoid this kind of editing. To make obvious spatial or causal relations between the vignettes would presume to know more about Lynch than even Lynch seems to know about himself. It's the only kind of approach that could ever work to describe such an inscrutable character.
I have studied Lynch for decades and read everything on him I can find. I didn't expect to learn anything from this doc but I did. There are moments of watching him work where his focus is so palpable, his need so urgent that suddenly I had new insights into his work. The insight comes from seeing what gets him excited and getting clues to his motivation. I could even sense my opinions on his films reordering retroactively as I watched this documentary.
If you are a fan, do not hesitate to see "Lynch". If you are looking for an "unpacking" of his motives then you are probably not the kind of person who likes him or his films anyway.
The new documentary "Lynch" reveals so much about the man and his methods without pretending to understand him. I have been very disappointed by many of the reviews of this film it seems the reviewers were expecting a different movie and were frustrated they were not seeing the film they imagined or hoped to see. V.A. Musetto writes, "Provides little new insight into Inland Empire". Was it supposed to? Variety complained, "like the feature it loosely chronicles, has no immediately discernible through line and a wide variety of video-image densities". Again, this sounds less like criticism and more like complaining. The Village Voice, "Much of this is tedious -- no more or less exciting than surveillance-cam footage of a regional sales manager." Expecting excitement seems to be the failure here. And most obtuse of all is Ken Fox's review, "anyone looking for a general overview of the director will do better looking elsewhere." Again this presumes that "Lynch" should have been a general overview, when it wasn't meant to be. All of these criticisms sound like blaming an elephant for not being a Zebra.
The documentary does assume the audience is already familiar with Lynch, his work and specifically, Inland Empire. I think it would be a fantastic companion piece for the DVD release of Inland Empire.
I found the film incredibly illuminating and I have been an avid fan of Lynch's for the past 20 years. I have always respected his refusal to explain things and resistance to simple symbolism. So I didn't expect the film to offer any insight into a man who is so famously inscrutable. But the filmmakers did it right they simply present the viewers with various vignettes of the man at work and in various moods: joyous, contemplative, angry, frustrated, depressed and inspired. But throughout the work something else emerged about the man: It's Lonely Being Lynch. The man is a slave to his creative urges and it makes little room for close personal relationships. The frustration this causes is palpable and it suddenly hit me that THIS is the source of that peculiar haunted anxiety that typifies what we all now call "Lynchian". There is a scene in "Lynch" where he stands in an abandoned factory and yells into the cold cavernous space, "Sally! Do you remember me?" over and over. It's funny at first but the more he yells the more desperate it sounds and finally haunting, "Lynchian". He can fill even a candid moment such as a sound check with so many layers of meaning and emotion he seems more like a conjurer. The filmmakers knew to let the moment go for a long time to let the ghosts emerge. I knew then and there this filmmaker really knew this was the only way to make a portrait of the man.
Some people have complained that the film is not chronological enough. It is critical that it isn't. To arrange these vignettes into chronological order would create a sense of narrative and causation This doc must avoid this kind of editing. To make obvious spatial or causal relations between the vignettes would presume to know more about Lynch than even Lynch seems to know about himself. It's the only kind of approach that could ever work to describe such an inscrutable character.
I have studied Lynch for decades and read everything on him I can find. I didn't expect to learn anything from this doc but I did. There are moments of watching him work where his focus is so palpable, his need so urgent that suddenly I had new insights into his work. The insight comes from seeing what gets him excited and getting clues to his motivation. I could even sense my opinions on his films reordering retroactively as I watched this documentary.
If you are a fan, do not hesitate to see "Lynch". If you are looking for an "unpacking" of his motives then you are probably not the kind of person who likes him or his films anyway.