Lynch wasn't as big of an icon as he is to zoomers today. He has only exploded in recent years. For those of in the 80s/90s, when there were so directors at their peak, Lynch was no big deal. So Ebert was watching his films, he thought that the director was a troll, or an idiot. He didn't get it. There were so many great directors, Lynch wasn't one of them.
Fast forward to today, most of those directors are past their prime, or dead, and Lynch sticks out way more than he did at the time.
he also enjoyed the straight story and gave it 4 out of 4 stars
Even those he had to performatively like them because he was so embarrassed at missing the mark.
It's also because Lynch is so massively influential. Every zoomer filmmaker today takes from him. He is the next step after the capitalistic literalism of the last few decades of Hollywood. But I do hope that society can return to a more healthy state, where a Lynch movie is not telling you things that the mainstream is lying about.
Lynch wasn't as big of an icon as he is to zoomers today. He has only exploded in recent years. For those of in the 80s/90s, when there were so directors at their peak, Lynch was no big deal. So Ebert was watching his films, he thought that the director was a troll, or an idiot. He didn't get it. There were so many great directors, Lynch wasn't one of them.
Fast forward to today, most of those directors are past their prime, or dead, and Lynch sticks out way more than he did at the time.
[...]
Even those he had to performatively like them because he was so embarrassed at missing the mark.
>Every zoomer filmmaker today takes from.
It's a indictment of Lynch that every zoomer filmmaker he "inspired" is trash.
Lynch is the pinnacle of midwit filmmaking. He impresses those who think something that's weird or surreal is inherently arty and intellectual. They don't have to articulate any cohesive arguments as to why he's great and can cop out with the "They don't mean anything bro, they just like evoke a mood dude. Don't pigeonhole art!" excuse. They want to pretend what they watch is profound, transcendent and spiritual despite being the most spiritually diseased generation to ever exist.
>Lynch is a misogynist. No actress should be forced to endure that kind of abuse.
That's not what he said. He said that Lynch is a dishonest filmmaker who was making marvel for the arthouse crowd.
> These sequences have great power. They make "9 1/2 Weeks" look rather timid by comparison, because they do seem genuinely born from the darkest and most despairing side of human nature. If "Blue Velvet" had continued to develop its story in a straight line, if it had followed more deeply into the implications of the first shocking encounter between Rossellini and MacLachlan, it might have made some real emotional discoveries. >Instead, director David Lynch chose to interrupt the almost hypnotic pull of that relationship in order to pull back to his jokey, small-town satire. Is he afraid that movie audiences might not be ready for stark S & M unless they're assured it's all really a joke? I was absorbed and convinced by the relationship between Rossellini and MacLachlan, and annoyed because the director kept placing himself between me and the material. After five or 10 minutes in which the screen reality was overwhelming, I didn't need the director prancing on with a top hat and cane, whistling that it was all in fun.
You're right, but it's exhausting to hate Lynch, because of how beloved his slop is. like I don't get it, it's fine, but he is no better than Cronenberg or Verhoeven. Zoomers take it too far.
Zoomers champion Lynch because he is a rebellion against the expectations and pressures of normie society. While Zoomers are peak npcs themselves, they can utilize their Marvel fandom subversively with David Lynch.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Almost every Lynch fan I come across likes.
1) Rian Johnson
2) Greta Gerwig
3) Ari Aster
4) Alex Garland(A24 in general)
You can see their brainletism whenever they actually talk about contemperory cinema. They like the idea of being subversive and unconventional so much that they end up praising slop like "Men", "Beau is Afraid" and "The Last Jedi".
> how beloved his slop is. like I don't get it, it's fine, but he is no better than Cronenberg or Verhoeven.
The simple reason Lynch is one of the few "prestige" directors to do "prestige television" and you know zoomers love their "prestige television. His spike in popularity compared to say Cronenberg can be boiled to the popularity of Twin Peaks: The Return. It's made obvious by how much Twin Peaks dominates the discourse around Lynch. How often have you seen someone discuss The Elephant man or The Straight Story or even Blue velvet.
This is the David Lynch sub on plebbit. Look at which of his works dominates the frontpage.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>This is the David Lynch sub on plebbit. Look at which of his works dominates the frontpage.
That's every subplebbit though. I get it but that site's fricking dogshit in general
4 months ago
Anonymous
>posting reddit screenshots
go back homosexual
4 months ago
Anonymous
Lynchgays BTFO. Do they even know Lynch directed the elephant man?
It was the time cinema was the most intellectual and serious bourgeoisie artform, with things like Clint Eastwood, and Merchant Ivory, and Steven Spielberg making all those prestigious films.
He got BTFO'd when he seethed about the "exploitation" in Blue Velvet and instead of admitting he was wrong he just doubled down on it for the rest of his life.
some anon posted this the other day and I thought it was hilarious how based Roeper was compared to Ebert. Ebert was normally pretty spot on, but ridiculously wrong on many reviews
He explained it perfectly in his Blue Velvet review. Lynch is a misogynist. No actress should be forced to endure that kind of abuse.
Also The Elephant Man was a bad story because Merrick never excelled at anything.
>Lynch is a misogynist. No actress should be forced to endure that kind of abuse.
That's not what he said. He said that Lynch is a dishonest filmmaker who was making marvel for the arthouse crowd.
> These sequences have great power. They make "9 1/2 Weeks" look rather timid by comparison, because they do seem genuinely born from the darkest and most despairing side of human nature. If "Blue Velvet" had continued to develop its story in a straight line, if it had followed more deeply into the implications of the first shocking encounter between Rossellini and MacLachlan, it might have made some real emotional discoveries. >Instead, director David Lynch chose to interrupt the almost hypnotic pull of that relationship in order to pull back to his jokey, small-town satire. Is he afraid that movie audiences might not be ready for stark S & M unless they're assured it's all really a joke? I was absorbed and convinced by the relationship between Rossellini and MacLachlan, and annoyed because the director kept placing himself between me and the material. After five or 10 minutes in which the screen reality was overwhelming, I didn't need the director prancing on with a top hat and cane, whistling that it was all in fun.
> So many Lynch fans ITT
I remember Lynchcucks used to be considered peak filmbro crowd. "Fans" of Lynch, Tarantino, Fincher, Scorsese should thank Nolan for becoming the filmbro icon and taking attention away from their stupidity.
He's a midwit
He really was. It's like he made it a point to hate good films if he felt he was sticking it to cinephiles.
Because he has taste
Lol,lmao
His jaw regularly dropped watching his films, it made him bitter and resentful because of the pain that caused
Looking back, some of Ebert's takes were really bizarre
I think he absolutely loved Mulholland Drive
he also enjoyed the straight story and gave it 4 out of 4 stars
Lynch wasn't as big of an icon as he is to zoomers today. He has only exploded in recent years. For those of in the 80s/90s, when there were so directors at their peak, Lynch was no big deal. So Ebert was watching his films, he thought that the director was a troll, or an idiot. He didn't get it. There were so many great directors, Lynch wasn't one of them.
Fast forward to today, most of those directors are past their prime, or dead, and Lynch sticks out way more than he did at the time.
Even those he had to performatively like them because he was so embarrassed at missing the mark.
It's also because Lynch is so massively influential. Every zoomer filmmaker today takes from him. He is the next step after the capitalistic literalism of the last few decades of Hollywood. But I do hope that society can return to a more healthy state, where a Lynch movie is not telling you things that the mainstream is lying about.
>Every zoomer filmmaker today takes from.
It's a indictment of Lynch that every zoomer filmmaker he "inspired" is trash.
Lynch is the pinnacle of midwit filmmaking. He impresses those who think something that's weird or surreal is inherently arty and intellectual. They don't have to articulate any cohesive arguments as to why he's great and can cop out with the "They don't mean anything bro, they just like evoke a mood dude. Don't pigeonhole art!" excuse. They want to pretend what they watch is profound, transcendent and spiritual despite being the most spiritually diseased generation to ever exist.
You're right, but it's exhausting to hate Lynch, because of how beloved his slop is. like I don't get it, it's fine, but he is no better than Cronenberg or Verhoeven. Zoomers take it too far.
Zoomers champion Lynch because he is a rebellion against the expectations and pressures of normie society. While Zoomers are peak npcs themselves, they can utilize their Marvel fandom subversively with David Lynch.
Almost every Lynch fan I come across likes.
1) Rian Johnson
2) Greta Gerwig
3) Ari Aster
4) Alex Garland(A24 in general)
You can see their brainletism whenever they actually talk about contemperory cinema. They like the idea of being subversive and unconventional so much that they end up praising slop like "Men", "Beau is Afraid" and "The Last Jedi".
> how beloved his slop is. like I don't get it, it's fine, but he is no better than Cronenberg or Verhoeven.
The simple reason Lynch is one of the few "prestige" directors to do "prestige television" and you know zoomers love their "prestige television. His spike in popularity compared to say Cronenberg can be boiled to the popularity of Twin Peaks: The Return. It's made obvious by how much Twin Peaks dominates the discourse around Lynch. How often have you seen someone discuss The Elephant man or The Straight Story or even Blue velvet.
This is the David Lynch sub on plebbit. Look at which of his works dominates the frontpage.
>This is the David Lynch sub on plebbit. Look at which of his works dominates the frontpage.
That's every subplebbit though. I get it but that site's fricking dogshit in general
>posting reddit screenshots
go back homosexual
Lynchgays BTFO. Do they even know Lynch directed the elephant man?
It was the time cinema was the most intellectual and serious bourgeoisie artform, with things like Clint Eastwood, and Merchant Ivory, and Steven Spielberg making all those prestigious films.
He got BTFO'd when he seethed about the "exploitation" in Blue Velvet and instead of admitting he was wrong he just doubled down on it for the rest of his life.
some anon posted this the other day and I thought it was hilarious how based Roeper was compared to Ebert. Ebert was normally pretty spot on, but ridiculously wrong on many reviews
So many of his opinions are basic and pedestrian. He's the critic for the everyman.
He explained it perfectly in his Blue Velvet review. Lynch is a misogynist. No actress should be forced to endure that kind of abuse.
Also The Elephant Man was a bad story because Merrick never excelled at anything.
>Lynch is a misogynist. No actress should be forced to endure that kind of abuse.
That's not what he said. He said that Lynch is a dishonest filmmaker who was making marvel for the arthouse crowd.
> These sequences have great power. They make "9 1/2 Weeks" look rather timid by comparison, because they do seem genuinely born from the darkest and most despairing side of human nature. If "Blue Velvet" had continued to develop its story in a straight line, if it had followed more deeply into the implications of the first shocking encounter between Rossellini and MacLachlan, it might have made some real emotional discoveries.
>Instead, director David Lynch chose to interrupt the almost hypnotic pull of that relationship in order to pull back to his jokey, small-town satire. Is he afraid that movie audiences might not be ready for stark S & M unless they're assured it's all really a joke? I was absorbed and convinced by the relationship between Rossellini and MacLachlan, and annoyed because the director kept placing himself between me and the material. After five or 10 minutes in which the screen reality was overwhelming, I didn't need the director prancing on with a top hat and cane, whistling that it was all in fun.
*makes fat moron coal burner seethe*
not enough Garfield
Lynch probably called his wife a baboon and wiped dog shit on his couch
>talk shit
>God gives him mouth cancer
pottery
> So many Lynch fans ITT
I remember Lynchcucks used to be considered peak filmbro crowd. "Fans" of Lynch, Tarantino, Fincher, Scorsese should thank Nolan for becoming the filmbro icon and taking attention away from their stupidity.
He's changed
Attention seeker with nothing to offer. Stop spamming that irrelevant talentless coward.