J. H. Prynne

[constant escape]

So the elements of that world that are being zeroed-in on, the elements that foreground the subtext, are the elements that would otherwise be left for the viewer to speculate about, or infer?

"all the subtext on the surface" is a cool way to think about this - would either of you say it can apply to Lynch's other films as well?

 

[version]

He's literally showing the filth beneath the picket fences. What would normally be implied or figurative is shown.

 

[version]

I wouldn't say it of all his films, but you could probably make the case for Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire.

 

[constant escape]

Thanks for bringing that up. Seems like a productive way of analyzing film, in general.

 

[version]

Blue Velvet minus Lynch would be American Beauty.

 

[luka]

Craner would say that's an infinitely better film.

 

[constant escape]

Thats interesting. Haven't seen either in a while - but you're saying that what is shown in Blue Velvet, to some extent, is only implied in American Beauty? Both having to do with some kind of surburban disillusionment, I guess.

 

[version]

Craner would say that's an infinitely better film.

Of course he would.

 

[version]

Thats interesting. Haven't seen either in a while - but you're saying that what is shown in Blue Velvet, to some extent, is only implied in American Beauty? Both having to do with some kind of surburban disillusionment, I guess.

Lynch foregrounds the interpretation and metaphor. You watch American Beauty and you see the dysfunction in the form of affairs and whatnot and realise you're being shown what's beneath the surface of surburbia. Lynch literally takes the camera beneath a picket fence and shows you the dirt. Form is content.

 

[Corpsey]

Is American Beauty more interesting to watch in the light of Spacey being outed as a predator?

 

[luka]

Why are we talking about Lynch anyway

 

[luka]

Suburban Goth Canon.

 

[luka]

Middle-of-the-Mall Alternative Culture.

 

[luka]

Reading University after hours cinema club. (Complimentary cherry pie and damn fine coffee)

 

[version]

Why are we talking about Lynch anyway

Because of the discussion of form/content and interpretation.

 

[version]

Is American Beauty more interesting to watch in the light of Spacey being outed as a predator?

On paper it seems like it should be, but my gut says no. I think the only effect would be finding it a bit grubbier and being less enthusiastic about watching it in the first place. I can't imagine rewatching anyway tbh, it's so naff.

 

[sus]

Don't like it. Don't trust it.

 

[sus]

Death of the Author is a French con, a false revolution, a wish that masquerades as a statement of fact. It's a false flag, a frustration passing as ideology, a knee-jerk to the intentionalists. Barthes disguises pleading for a different emphasis as a discovery of the true ontology of literature. Somehow people listened.

 

[sus]

There are intended meanings (both conscious and unconscious) and interpreted meanings. Neither of these has any claim as to being the "true" meaning of a text. The dispute is merely verbal.

 

[sus]

And yet still, when readers read, they cannot help but go looking for intent. "Pierre Menard" is, unintentionally, a good example of this: the biographical data of authorship changes the meaning. The world outside the text, which is compressed into the text, is the decoding schema, the information protocol.