[subego]

YouTube - David Lynch on iPhone

Only 30 seconds.

Don't know if this already made the rounds here, but search is borked right now and I'm feeling impatient.

[phobos]

Let me get this straight.
How many inches do I need to properly understand and experience the movie??
4 inches won't get you that far in to the characters emotions. But in 42 inches you will be able to experience the drama of the character and what he is going through. As if the human loss and every emotion the character is experiencing is proportionate to the size of my screen.
And don't get me started on the visual side of things. If you can't appreciate the visuals of the movie you're watching,
either you need glasses or the visuals aren't that good to begin with...

Get real David Lynch...

[copied and pasted from my comment on the youtube video]

[Spheric Harlot]

In botox-ridden Hollywood, you're mostly right.

In actual movie-making, as in real life, it's the details and subtle changes in expression that actually impart meaning.

It's a similar discussion as the audiophile/studios one that's been done to death.

[::maroma::]

I think the whole argument he's making is pretty bunk. Its such a subjective thing that no one person can say what is right and wrong here. What about silent movies? What about the quality of the picture in those silent movies? They were terrible quality, no sound. So does that make them all a wast of time? What about black and white vs. color? How can anyone get the full experience of a film in black and white? We live in a world of color after all!

Bullcrap. David Lynch is a grumpy old man. Go back to making nonsensical films Mr. Lynch. Leave the viewing to us.

[subego]

^^^ Did Lynch complain about TVs?

But yeah, I agree with Spheric (and Lynch) here.

Even if your TV can display the detail and subtlety, and you're close enough to see it, those things affect you differently when they're 30' tall. A good director/cinematographer knows that and uses it as a tool.

OTOH, with the last movie I saw, it was at the end of the run and the print was total garbage. Not a problem with Blu-Ray and a big flat screen.

The phone though... Ugh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I think the whole argument he's making is pretty bunk. Its such a subjective thing that no one person can say what is right and wrong here. What about silent movies? What about the quality of the picture in those silent movies? They were terrible quality, no sound. So does that make them all a wast of time? What about black and white vs. color? How can anyone get the full experience of a film in black and white? We live in a world of color after all!

Bullcrap. David Lynch is a grumpy old man. Go back to making nonsensical films Mr. Lynch. Leave the viewing to us.

I think a proper analogy with a junky print from a silent movie is whether you think watching that is just as good as watching a pristine copy of the same movie.

The answer is obviously no.

[lpkmckenna]

I watch films I've already seen on my iPhone, but I wouldn't watch a film for the first time on it, for the reason Lynch is expressing.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think a proper analogy with a junky print from a silent movie is whether you think watching that is just as good as watching a pristine copy of the same movie.

The answer is obviously no.

That's not what I was getting at exactly. What I'm getting from Lynch's rant is that he feels that the only way to properly experience a film is to view it using the current mainstream moviegoing technologies: movie theaters, big screen, big sound. And anything else is hogwash. So I'm wondering what people experienced when they watched films like a silent movie back in the day?

And that begs the question, what about the future film watching experience? Will it render the current one bunk? Will it be too good?

I'm pretty sure I understand what he's trying to say, but the way he says it makes him come across as a grumpy old pretentious douche.

I mean I get that watching a film on a small screen isn't the same as watching it on a larger one. I'm not sure anyone would really argue differently, and I'm wondering why he's so worked up about it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Films are made with the medium in mind.

Silent films were made for the material and theatres of the time.

Made-for-TV movies are made for TV, with those made in earlier decades catering to the known limitations of the tube TV screens of the day.

And David Lynch makes films that are built to the full impact and detail of a modern cinema.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I'm pretty sure I understand what he's trying to say, but the way he says it makes him come across as a grumpy old pretentious douche.

That's the conclusion I drew from it. But not being a fan of his work, I'm not inclined to be charitable to his opinion anyway.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

That's not what I was getting at exactly. What I'm getting from Lynch's rant is that he feels that the only way to properly experience a film is to view it using the current mainstream moviegoing technologies: movie theaters, big screen, big sound. And anything else is hogwash. So I'm wondering what people experienced when they watched films like a silent movie back in the day?

What's confusing me is I have absolutely no idea where you are getting this from. He's not saying this.

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I mean I get that watching a film on a small screen isn't the same as watching it on a larger one. I'm not sure anyone would really argue differently, and I'm wondering why he's so worked up about it.

This confuses me too. He's a artsy director, why wouldn't he get worked up about it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by -Q- 

That's the conclusion I drew from it. But not being a fan of his work, I'm not inclined to be charitable to his opinion anyway.

One of the things I like about it is that (to me) he comes across as such a nice old man right until the end.

That's one of the cool things about Lynch though, you have a combo of nightmare creepy bizarre mixed with unaffected sweetness.