This is the most straight forward I have ever seen him do a interview. He actually gives away a lot of what the movie is about in a way I haven't seen him do anywhere else.
I was so stunned by _Lost Highway_ that I couldn't speak for a good 20 minutes after leaving the theatre, or I didn't want to speak, I should say - I didn't want to listen to my friends, or process and respond to the things they were saying, I just wanted my mind to keep spinning, to allow that truly unique experience of confusion and wonder to resonate as long as possible.
So many years passed and still in love in the movie... Thank you Paris for giving me the opportunity to watch it again in a movie theater ❤... funny how secrets travel...
That's because David and all key figures involved have a secret formula to that film, even though he's often said the name of that secret formula to the public. So he's holding back more than what the typical viewer is aware of, but also letting it be known.
Psychogenic fugue, at least from what I know and understand about it, may be a tricky subject for thrillers like Lost Highway. But I admire the most unique talents like David who can make the best possible use out of it.
How is _Lost Highway_ considered so "dark and incomprehensible"? It's one of his more straightforward films if you ask me, and that's accounting for the symbolism as well, not just the superficial story.
In two minutes he's clearly confirmed the most accepted explanations for the movie : Fred murdered Renee (and possibly had had her new boyfriend killed). Fred goes to deathrow. Fred goes into dissociative fugue where he can live a better life than he's ever had except reality, guilt and whatnot eventually creep back inside until he can't run away anymore and ends up on the chair and boom, credit roll and a memorable soundtrack are left.
This idea of a psychogenic fugue state might also be applicable to Eraserhead. Since we're never given any context to either the images or the individual having these nightmares we're stumbling around in search of meaning. I've two interpretations. 1 (the more conventional one) This is the nightmare of a man totally unprepared with the idea of marriage and fatherhood and has turned his wife and child into monsters because of that anxiety. 2. This is the nightmare of man who has murdered his wife and child in his waking life and to ease his guilt over this has turned them into monsters, especially the baby who is human in only the most abstract way. But I imagine there are other theories. This is why the film has endured and continues to excite the imagination.
I both love and hate Lynch for giving away this tidbit about the film being inspired by the OJ Simpson case. It does definitely contextualize the film and help us discern a greater meaning from the story but I feel like it gives us a bit too definitive a conclusion. When I first watched the film I wasn't 100% certain if Fred was truly guilty or not but this basically confirms that he was. It takes away some of the mystery.
I think this is why David Lynch does the movies he does. To him, everything's kind of obvious, almost bland, but if you have NO idea what influenced his thinking, it's a bizarre mystery that you can almost barely put together. I think he knows that, so he tries to just never explain anything, and then a bunch of years pass, and then he goes "I'll just tell people, if they think it's that confusing."
I just finished watching the movie, and went through some reviews and explanations. I am now certain that Fred is actually guilty and that whole movie was his mind trying to cope with it while tricking itself like Lynch said here. What I find interesting is not Fred story itself anymore, but how does mind work, to which extend it will go, in which dimension and sphere its working. The whole thought process of the mind is dream like, surreal, just like this movie. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-obW5UEE1Cwc.html This interview gives a lot of insight
Inland Empire is more of a puzzle, but that's all it is. It's grimey and drags in the middle. it's too meandering and, in my opinion, isn't really on the level of his other work.
i definitely agree with you on it being his most "dark and incomprehensible" - even with inland empire now in the equation - i still feel like i understand Lost Highway less
I get it, it’s his style. But can yall lynch fans at least admit the acting and dialogue is a tad jarring and unnatural? No one would talk like they do in his films. It throws me off. On top of that, the acting appears so soap opera. I want to like him. But maybe I’m just not equipped to get it
@@balladofthebroken7569 Lynch fan here. I don't think I've ever seen a Lynch fan try to say that his dialogue ISN'T jarring and unnatural? It's all a part of the fugue, dreamlike feeling his films are going for. If you try really really hard to remember the conversations you have in your dreams, they would play out much like a Lynch film. That's what we love about his work: few other filmmakers can well and truly capture the essence of what dreams feel like in the moment of living them - besides the dark corners of the RU-vid algorithm at 4 in the morning after some booze 😂
@@balladofthebroken7569 That's interesting because I love the soap opera aspect of Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive. It's an excellent contrast to the disconcerting and strange things that occur in the plots of his films.
@@balladofthebroken7569 the soap opera acting thing is completely intentional. Lynch loves soap operas. You can especially see it in Twin Peaks, which is at the same time a satire of soap operas, a celebration of them and one itself.
@@balladofthebroken7569 Notice that in Mulholland Drive, the first part has the Lynchian acting style and then after everything is jumbled--Betty is now Diane--the acting is completely naturalistic. Never thought of Lynch as an "actor's director" until that movie.
