Hacker News Reader

Comment by wk_end | Hacker News Reader

Lynch's work tends to operate on dream logic. And that's how dreams often work - there can be coherent ideas - some random, and some related to concerns in the real world - and there can also be just bizarre, insane, inexplicable stuff.

View on HN

I have the impression that we are observers suddenly thrust into the dream and we, like a detective, must piece together the puzzle. This allows everyone to walk away with a different view which is a far cry from linear plots where everything is wrapped up, concluded - roll credits. Lynch makes you think about his work after they conclude.

I know some people who hate his works for this reason. They want a neatly packaged story that doesn't require them to think.

I love surrealism, dreamscapes and many forms of nonsense and randomness.

I loath anything that feels like it is on the edge of making sense. I hate searching for hidden meaning in something that doesn't actually have a legible hidden meaning. I suspect some of Lynch's work fits in that category.

I'm on the engineer spectrum and I just accept that others rate things that I never will enjoy. Maybe I should learn the appeal of tarot? I vicariously enjoy being around my friend that watches movies non-linearly. I don't understand another friend who watched a popular old movie thousands of times and applied their smarts to analysing it multiple different ways.

I don't think I fit your stereotype for people that want a nice linear packaged story they don't need to think about. But maybe I'm overthinking.

I do enjoy trying to understand what smart friends intensely direct their thoughts towards: so I would enjoy talking with a friend who loves Mulholland Drive.

> I hate searching for hidden meaning in something that doesn't actually have a legible hidden meaning.

Like dreams, no?

It's not about being a pretentious savant who can analyze his films for deeper meaning but enjoying them for defying the expectations. And you can draw any conclusion you like - from hating it to watching it 1000x and writing a thesis on it and everything in between.

> Like dreams, no?

Not really because I don't try to analyse my dreams.

I often have AAA vivid dreams in SciFi, fantasy, or outré settings: I absolutely love my stunning inner dreamlife, but I rarely read any meanings into what I see.

> but enjoying them for defying the expectations

I don't get that pleasure. Even though I do enjoy some freaky movies! For me good surprise breaks and makes its own logical consistency.

I want either sense or nonsense: a half-mixture just annoys me.

> I have the impression that we are observers suddenly thrust into the dream and we, like a detective, must piece together the puzzle. > ... > I know some people who hate his works for this reason. They want a neatly packaged story that doesn't require them to think.

As someone who isn't particularly into his work, this feels like a false dichotomy to me. There's a middle ground between dream-like sequences that are intentionally ambiguous to the point where the directory refuses to elaborate on a single definitive explanation and everything being blatant and obvious to the point where no thinking is required, and I'd argue that trying to figure something out that does have a single definitive explanation but isn't obvious is far more similar to what a detective would need to figure out. This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with anything Lynch does or with the fact that people enjoy his work, but I think it's unfair to dismiss people who don't feel the same way as not wanting to think at all.

> They want a neatly packaged story that doesn't require them to think.

Or they want something with substance, not just dreams-via-film where even the creator doesn't have any answers or a plan.

Anyone can fill in the blanks. It's not really 'thinking', IMO.

Random stuff: David Lynch on what lead him to cast the set decorator, Frank Silva, as "Bob" in Twin Peaks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37P0ukg4io0&t=40s

It’s a bit like the automatic-writing quality of Bob Dylan lyrics (or especially text he’d write for his album covers) but in film form. Similar deal where the “text” is obscure and seems full of puzzles, and you can make connections and draw some conclusions—and certainly a tone, themes, and even a point or message may be communicated clearly—but you can’t count on everything lining up and making logical sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com