In light of his passing, I've found myself thinking about Lynch again. I think you've nailed it. Perhaps every weird moment in his films has some deeper meaning, but perhaps not. Maybe some of it just empty-headed weirdness for the sake of being weird and giving his fans something to rub their beards over. I strongly suspect it's the latter - that once his weirdness became a brand, he had to keep delivering more of it.
The thing is, even he did add a completely random element into a film with no meaning, his fans would claim to understand it anyway. They would invent a meaning, not to be dishonest, but because it's human nature to try to make sense of nonsense.
This is why I have a problem with Lynch. Whether or not his surrealist visions had any deeper meaning, his fans bring their own meaning anyway. Maybe that's why they like it, and I'm cool with that. It's just not for me. I want to know the filmmaker's message; I don't want to come away feeling like I've created it myself. I could analyse his work and write some long essay about how it represents the human condition, but I wouldn't believe. It might feel intellectually satisfying, as such work often does, but it would still be a lie.
Maybe Lynch really was a genius, or maybe he was a creative charlatan. All I know is his work is not my cup of tea.
Tony: thanks for reading & responding. My take is that Lynch was capable of genius, and maybe not above being a bit of a charlatan -- but I *do* believe he was invested in what he was doing (I don't think he ever phoned it in, or cynically did work he knew was nonsense). Rather, I believe he fell into the trap SO many of our anointed and beloved artistic masters do: once you have enough fans, not to mention critics, ardently in your corner, you may edit less carefully, may scrutinize yourself less scrupulously, and put out C+ work knowing it will be beloved upon arrival. In the final analysis, he did make people think (and feel) so I think it's fair to say he did his work well here while he was around.
In light of his passing, I've found myself thinking about Lynch again. I think you've nailed it. Perhaps every weird moment in his films has some deeper meaning, but perhaps not. Maybe some of it just empty-headed weirdness for the sake of being weird and giving his fans something to rub their beards over. I strongly suspect it's the latter - that once his weirdness became a brand, he had to keep delivering more of it.
The thing is, even he did add a completely random element into a film with no meaning, his fans would claim to understand it anyway. They would invent a meaning, not to be dishonest, but because it's human nature to try to make sense of nonsense.
This is why I have a problem with Lynch. Whether or not his surrealist visions had any deeper meaning, his fans bring their own meaning anyway. Maybe that's why they like it, and I'm cool with that. It's just not for me. I want to know the filmmaker's message; I don't want to come away feeling like I've created it myself. I could analyse his work and write some long essay about how it represents the human condition, but I wouldn't believe. It might feel intellectually satisfying, as such work often does, but it would still be a lie.
Maybe Lynch really was a genius, or maybe he was a creative charlatan. All I know is his work is not my cup of tea.
Tony: thanks for reading & responding. My take is that Lynch was capable of genius, and maybe not above being a bit of a charlatan -- but I *do* believe he was invested in what he was doing (I don't think he ever phoned it in, or cynically did work he knew was nonsense). Rather, I believe he fell into the trap SO many of our anointed and beloved artistic masters do: once you have enough fans, not to mention critics, ardently in your corner, you may edit less carefully, may scrutinize yourself less scrupulously, and put out C+ work knowing it will be beloved upon arrival. In the final analysis, he did make people think (and feel) so I think it's fair to say he did his work well here while he was around.
No worries. It's a good article.