"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I never proclaimed I was an arthouse fan. Nor an authority on film as such-- my expertise, if I have any, lies elsewhere. In fact, I'm aiming to follow my own advice from my rant in the Part 12 thread, namely, asking questions rather than providing answers or stating opinions absent dialogue or discussion.
For instance: YamBag, I've learned to recognize that you seem to take pride or pleasure in your contrarian sensibility. No criticism of you personally, here, just an observation. All I've surmised is your satisfaciton in pointing our hypocrisy and setting others straight. Which is fine-- your comments about my comments gave me good reason to reexamine my motivations for various posts on this forum.
Inclines me to ask, "What do you, personally, enjoy or value as far as film, art or entertainment is concerned? And why do you think you do?"
Lend me your thoughts/ let me have it.
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Also: What's controversial about social justice?? Not a fan, KDawg?
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
Arthouse for sure is "off the rails", but I think my 1-4 is what makes it not arthouse.
Arthouse films are usually self produced (aka not funded by showtime), don't get big marketing, and use nobodies in their roles. When Michael cera is a bit part in a show, it's clearly not "arthouse" imo at least.
If you look up the definition of arthouse cinema, so much of it completely contrasts season 3 EXCEPT lynch being free to do what he wants.
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
Arthouse for sure is "off the rails", but I think my 1-4 is what makes it not arthouse.
Arthouse films are usually self produced (aka not funded by showtime), don't get big marketing, and use nobodies in their roles. When Michael cera is a bit part in a show, it's clearly not "arthouse" imo at least.
If you look up the definition of arthouse cinema, so much of it completely contrasts season 3 EXCEPT lynch being free to do what he wants.
Not sure what definition of arthouse you refer to, Yambag-- can you provide us a link?
To my understanding , the term originated as a descriptor for the type of cinema that would play art films, i.e., an "arthouse." The slippage was from an adjective describing a type of theater to a noun describing the style of films played there.
Thus, I think we can agree, that "arthouse" can describe a style (a criteria The Return satisfies) OR the social context of a film/filmmaker (i.e., bohemian, disinterested, autonomous artist and independent distribution)...
I think this is a non argument. That is to say, I think it is moot and a proxy for some other kind of disagreement I don't fully understand...
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I never proclaimed I was an arthouse fan. Nor an authority on film as such-- my expertise, if I have any, lies elsewhere. In fact, I'm aiming to follow my own advice from my rant in the Part 12 thread, namely, asking questions rather than providing answers or stating opinions absent dialogue or discussion.
For instance: YamBag, I've learned to recognize that you seem to take pride or pleasure in your contrarian sensibility. No criticism of you personally, here, just an observation. All I've surmised is your satisfaciton in pointing our hypocrisy and setting others straight. Which is fine-- your comments about my comments gave me good reason to reexamine my motivations for various posts on this forum.
Inclines me to ask, "What do you, personally, enjoy or value as far as film, art or entertainment is concerned? And why do you think you do?"
Lend me your thoughts/ let me have it.
I can be a contrarian at times, but I'm not being one on this site.
His season to put it frankly has been disappointing. Between horrendous pacing (this season imo could axe extraneous shots and be 2-3 episodes shorter right now) and just "wtf" storytelling, it's been a disappointment for me and friends who are huge peaks fans.
What I like in film is to be shown a story and have emotions pulled from me. Laughter, fear, sadness, or anything. This season has pulled boredom out of me more than anything. One easy example is dougie. While dougie's story has progressed over time more so the last two episodes), the lead up was soooooo boring. We got he was a vegetable and it was constantly shown how "out there" he is. If anything, parts of the show have been dumbed WAY too down to the point where people think they are seeing something so deep and great, but it's not.
Im still holding out for an ending that delivers. I've recently taken an opinion that what has ruined it is it's weekly now. I think lynch didn't make sense by refusing to reveal it all in one shot but then saying it's an 18 hour movie. I've come around to think "ok if this was watched in one shot, the pacing may feel better but in one hour morsels it's awful" so I may binge it when it's done and like it better.
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Also: What's controversial about social justice?? Not a fan, KDawg?
nope. Not a fan. Just a bunch of angry people throwing stones from glass houses is what I see.
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
Arthouse for sure is "off the rails", but I think my 1-4 is what makes it not arthouse.
Arthouse films are usually self produced (aka not funded by showtime), don't get big marketing, and use nobodies in their roles. When Michael cera is a bit part in a show, it's clearly not "arthouse" imo at least.
If you look up the definition of arthouse cinema, so much of it completely contrasts season 3 EXCEPT lynch being free to do what he wants.
Not sure what definition of arthouse you refer to, Yambag-- can you provide us a link?
To my understanding , the term originated as a descriptor for the type of cinema that would play art films, i.e., an "arthouse." The slippage was from an adjective describing a type of theater to a noun describing the style of films played there.
Thus, I think we can agree, that "arthouse" can describe a style (a criteria The Return satisfies) OR the social context of a film/filmmaker (i.e., bohemian, disinterested, autonomous artist and independent distribution)...
I think this is a non argument. Do others agree, based on my distinction above?
Look up "arthouse film definition".
Oh and having your fan gear flooded on the showtime site and hot topic is also not arthousey lol.
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Also: What's controversial about social justice?? Not a fan, KDawg?
nope. Not a fan. Just a bunch of angry people throwing stones from glass houses is what I see.
So the status quo is... just fine?
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Also: What's controversial about social justice?? Not a fan, KDawg?
nope. Not a fan. Just a bunch of angry people throwing stones from glass houses is what I see.
So the status quo is... just fine?
Oh, so now you put words in one's mouth?
Yeah, old man. Totally. You know, there's no inbetween at all possible. Not at all. Either full-blown SJW or "status quo, bro."
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
Arthouse for sure is "off the rails", but I think my 1-4 is what makes it not arthouse.
Arthouse films are usually self produced (aka not funded by showtime), don't get big marketing, and use nobodies in their roles. When Michael cera is a bit part in a show, it's clearly not "arthouse" imo at least.
If you look up the definition of arthouse cinema, so much of it completely contrasts season 3 EXCEPT lynch being free to do what he wants.
Not sure what definition of arthouse you refer to, Yambag-- can you provide us a link?
To my understanding , the term originated as a descriptor for the type of cinema that would play art films, i.e., an "arthouse." The slippage was from an adjective describing a type of theater to a noun describing the style of films played there.
Thus, I think we can agree, that "arthouse" can describe a style (a criteria The Return satisfies) OR the social context of a film/filmmaker (i.e., bohemian, disinterested, autonomous artist and independent distribution)...
I think this is a non argument. Do others agree, based on my distinction above?
Look up "arthouse film definition".
Oh and having your fan gear flooded on the showtime site and hot topic is also not arthousey lol.
I asked you for your source, Yambag, not a "let me google that for you quip."
My etymology is corroborated by multiple definitions, but I'll let you do your google research.
You've made your point emphatically that something that can be distributed by a major media corporation can't be "arthouse." I attempted to nuance the term with two senses in which it is commonly used...
But let's set that term aside. I've emphasized that having stylistically ambitious programming on Showtime is a good sign for consumers who'd like more of that. That seems to me to be noncontroversial. You've likewise argued vehemently for why you find The Return disappointing. Let's agree to disagree here.
But I return to my question, "What do you value or wish to see more of, generally, as far as film/tv/media is concerned, YamBag?"
It's like when there were only 3 episodes left of M*A*S*H and I'm all like "OMG, who wants to see Klinger in another dress????" But now I couldn't think that because it would upset a social justice warrior on social media, so instead I say, "OMG how COURAGEOUS of that Klinger to wear that BEAUTIFUL dress????"
Also: What's controversial about social justice?? Not a fan, KDawg?
nope. Not a fan. Just a bunch of angry people throwing stones from glass houses is what I see.
So the status quo is... just fine?
Oh, so now you put words in one's mouth?
Yeah, old man. Totally. You know, there's no inbetween at all possible. Not at all. Either full-blown SJW or "status quo, bro."
Nah, I didn't say "Social Justice Warrior" -- you did! And I'm not wishing to start an argument, just to nuance the distinction between the "Social Justice Warriors" that offend you and the concept of "social justice." You seemed to suggest the concept was spurious ("glass houses") but I think perhaps instead it's the tone or manner of discussions of "social justice" that alienates you... Am I right?
Certainly not wishing to put words in your mouth! I just asked if you found the concept of "social justice" controversial, you said you did, and I asked if, instead, the status quo was just fine... given that it is the status quo that advocates of social justice to perceive to be "injustice." hence the question mark.
I hope that you find a way to insulate yourself from the alleged stone-throwing you find objectionable.
I understand what Yambag is saying. And I'm sorry that he isn't enjoying Twin Peaks Season 3 as much as others. That's art though right? 10 people can watch the same film/series/painting and have 10 different emotional responses to it. We're all different human beings, and one person's reaction and emotional responses to something should never validate/invalidate another person's reaction and emotional responses.
Yambag stated that he is "feeling boredom", "disappointment" and that he's not feeling any emotions evoked from it. That is a totally fair assessment, and a true one as he is stating his reaction to this season of Twin Peaks.
I have an opposite emotional response to it, I'm enthralled and 100 percent emotionally involved in the 13 hours I've seen already.
And I'm sure the millions of other viewers fall into a million different ranges.
I'm just happy that we are getting the opportunity to watch filmmaking/storytelling like this. I don't really care where the money comes from to make Twin Peaks, as long as the money givers aren't influencing artistic control/artistic content. And to me, that is what arthouse cinema is about.
Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Jim Jarmsuch, E. Elias Merhige and David Lynch are 5 examples of writers/directors that are able to make their films with ZERO influence from the financers. It's pure art, no matter how big the studio or network that is funding them, and no matter how much money they get, and no matter how external marketing happens around the product. It's the final product itself that matters. If it's untouched and unmeddled with, and the artist has final control, then it's arthouse.
That's my definition of arthouse anyway. So the film Begotten and the film Amelie, two films that couldn't be any more different artistically, are both arthouse productions because despite their massive differences in budgets and distribution, they are both made from a singular artist. Pure art comes in many forms.
I understand what Yambag is saying. And I'm sorry that he isn't enjoying Twin Peaks Season 3 as much as others. That's art though right? 10 people can watch the same film/series/painting and have 10 different emotional responses to it. We're all different human beings, and one person's reaction and emotional responses to something should never validate/invalidate another person's reaction and emotional responses.
Yambag stated that he is "feeling boredom", "disappointment" and that he's not feeling any emotions evoked from it. That is a totally fair assessment, and a true one as he is stating his reaction to this season of Twin Peaks.
I have an opposite emotional response to it, I'm enthralled and 100 percent emotionally involved in the 13 hours I've seen already.
And I'm sure the millions of other viewers fall into a million different ranges.
I'm just happy that we are getting the opportunity to watch filmmaking/storytelling like this. I don't really care where the money comes from to make Twin Peaks, as long as the money givers aren't influencing artistic control/artistic content. And to me, that is what arthouse cinema is about.
Woody Allen, Quentin Tarantino, Jim Jarmsuch, E. Elias Merhige and David Lynch are 5 examples of writers/directors that are able to make their films with ZERO influence from the financers. It's pure art, no matter how big the studio or network that is funding them, and no matter how much money they get, and no matter how external marketing happens around the product. It's the final product itself that matters. If it's untouched and unmeddled with, and the artist has final control, then it's arthouse.
That's my definition of arthouse anyway. So the film Begotten and the film Amelie, two films that couldn't be any more different artistically, are both arthouse productions because despite their massive differences in budgets and distribution, they are both made from a singular artist. Pure art comes in many forms.
Agreed, and well said, Jack.
I think there's nothing controversial about the premise that "arthouse" film can at once be understood as a style ("unconstrained"), a genre ("characteristic of films played in arthouse cinemas"), and a social context for each (commercially independent, artistically autonomous).
So, the controversy that persists is one of differences of taste, as far as I can tell. And possibly another proxy issue that has yet to be identified... although I think it has something to do with tone in writing and web forum behavior... And possibly my age??
"Yet what distinguishes Lynch from his contemporaries (Tarantino, etc.), IMO is how far outside the stylistic boundaries of mainstream audience preferences his films reach... "
And yet he sticks so faithfully to his own self-imposed boundaries. Ironic, no? His work has created its own niche, which definitely sells by indie standards. I would call it "mainstream arthouse".
Are we talking only American contemporaries here? Because there are tonnes unbearably arty directors outside of Hollywood that make Lynch look like Michael Bay (in Europe especially). They haven't reached Lynch's level of prominence because they are too arty to sell on any scale. You can't acclimatize to them like you can to Lynch after 1 film (Mulholland Dr. was my introduction too). David is successful because, after 1 exposure, he never surprises you again. He isn't simply 'weird'. He only delivers 1 type of weirdness that a sizable audience has grown comfortable with.
Yup, I called it "mass-mediated art" in another thread, but "mainstream arthouse" is better-- nicely put! I think you're absolutely right about Lynch carving out a cult following of mainstream viewers willing to step out of the norm according to his signature style... Tarantino did the same thing, IMO, but reached a wider audience faster because of the sheer intelligibility of his pastiche of 70's cult genres and, well, pulp fiction (improper noun)
... I'd love it if you would hip us to some additional non-American filmmakers (or TV series) that you feel are taking bolder or more artistically ambitious risks .... Eager to check out what you already suggested...
... "Arthouse," as such, scarcely happens here in the US anymore... Independent cinemas-- at least in my experience in Los Angeles and two other U.S. cities-- mostly play foreign films.
For me, all of this makes Lynch on Showtime a hopeful sign...
Lynch is on showtime because
1) he's a big name
2) he brings in star power in his casts
3) in an era of reboots, a cult show like peaks was perfect to do
4) he was handed a ton of cash (for himself and for production)
All these reasons are why this is everything BUT arthouse film making.
The fact that people proclaim they are arthouse fans but then need to be introduced to non American arthouse makers speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on your point about arthouse film making. This IS arthouse filmmaking. Lynch was given carte blanche.....he would NEVER had reentered the world of Twin Peaks without being given full creative control. So within that definition of arthouse filmmaking, there is one singular vision (Lynch/Frost) creating the art we have seen in the past 13 episodes, with ZERO studio interference.
If there was any studio interference or limitations, then you would be right, and this wouldn't be arthouse filmmaking
You are correct on your points (1), (2), (3), and (4) though in my opinion.
Arthouse for sure is "off the rails", but I think my 1-4 is what makes it not arthouse.
Arthouse films are usually self produced (aka not funded by showtime), don't get big marketing, and use nobodies in their roles. When Michael cera is a bit part in a show, it's clearly not "arthouse" imo at least.
If you look up the definition of arthouse cinema, so much of it completely contrasts season 3 EXCEPT lynch being free to do what he wants.
Not sure what definition of arthouse you refer to, Yambag-- can you provide us a link?
To my understanding , the term originated as a descriptor for the type of cinema that would play art films, i.e., an "arthouse." The slippage was from an adjective describing a type of theater to a noun describing the style of films played there.
Thus, I think we can agree, that "arthouse" can describe a style (a criteria The Return satisfies) OR the social context of a film/filmmaker (i.e., bohemian, disinterested, autonomous artist and independent distribution)...
I think this is a non argument. Do others agree, based on my distinction above?
Look up "arthouse film definition".
Oh and having your fan gear flooded on the showtime site and hot topic is also not arthousey lol.
I asked you for your source, Yambag, not a "let me google that for you quip."
My etymology is corroborated by multiple definitions, but I'll let you do your google research.
You've made your point emphatically that something that can be distributed by a major media corporation can't be "arthouse." I attempted to nuance the term with two senses in which it is commonly used...
But let's set that term aside. I've emphasized that having stylistically ambitious programming on Showtime is a good sign for consumers who'd like more of that. That seems to me to be noncontroversial. You've likewise argued vehemently for why you find The Return disappointing. Let's agree to disagree here.
But I return to my question, "What do you value or wish to see more of, generally, as far as film/tv/media is concerned, YamBag?"
I googled it, I wasn't being snarky.
And let's stop kidding ourselves. This wasnt put on showtime for stylistically ambitious programming. It's on there to drum up business off a cult following and a famous cast.
The last part I already answered. I'm too lazy to requote it as the quotercoaster we have going it painful to navigate on mobile.
Fire walk with