One of the reasons for letting the scene play out may have been to give the audience a good look and decide they were definitely not the straight-A students that Jean-Michel sent out. These girls don't look like high academic material.
I'm convinced her Rainier was empty.
That was a nice local touch.
Synthetical Chinese material in drugs, which might be causing the rash...
I wouldn't say I have a great memory of previous episodes, but I thought maybe it was to do with the drug 'sparkle' that Red and Richard Horne are selling. If zebra and penguin are references to the drug, then maybe it's a drug that somehow connects you to the black and white lodges (or just the black lodge since it has a stripey floor). Presumably Red has some connection to the black lodge, since he has magical abilities.
Lynch (and Frost) are obviously very interested in (i) altered states of consciousness (mind-yank viewing experiences, "drugs", alternate realities (incl supposed governmental and scientific conspiracies to keep aspects of the nature of the world hidden), meditation, the supernatural, intense overpowering experiences, and (ii) in portraying the real-world regulation (incl organised crime, problems of corruption) and dangers of going after these experiences (Itchy and Chewy are points on a wheel that includes Laura and the 119-girl). I see this interest as part of a global movement that includes Sam Harris' take on spirituality without religion and Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhist take on the everyday sublime.
Lynch (and Frost) are obviously very interested in (i) altered states of consciousness (mind-yank viewing experiences, "drugs", alternate realities (incl supposed governmental and scientific conspiracies to keep aspects of the nature of the world hidden), meditation, the supernatural, intense overpowering experiences, and (ii) in portraying the real-world regulation (incl organised crime, problems of corruption) and dangers of going after these experiences (Itchy and Chewy are points on a wheel that includes Laura and the 119-girl). I see this interest as part of a global movement that includes Sam Harris' take on spirituality without religion and Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhist take on the everyday sublime.
Lynch is against drugs, though. I saw a video where he did a talk about film and meditation, and someone asked if such state of the brain is the same to when using drugs. Lynch replied "well, later we'll show you what drugs will do to your brain."
Btw does anyone noticed that the 3 singers in the end wear the same clothes like in episode 4 when they performed for the 1st time..
Does it have a deeper meaning? I dont know what to think with all these crazy scenes that happen so far in the Roadhouse, which i really like..
or just in the shootings of the show they did perform back to back their songs and Lynch later put the 1st one in episode 4 and the 2nd one in episdoe 9
Maybe its nothing but i observed it so i thought to share..
Anyway, i enjoyed both of their songs a lot and so far the TP soundtrack and all the Bang Bang Bar perfomances are amazing!
Most interesting thing for me is that They are using a code language involving animals. As Mr C 'The cow jumped over the moon', se have a zebra and a penguin here
Regardless of the so called *Farm*...
Lynch (and Frost) are obviously very interested in (i) altered states of consciousness (mind-yank viewing experiences, "drugs", alternate realities (incl supposed governmental and scientific conspiracies to keep aspects of the nature of the world hidden), meditation, the supernatural, intense overpowering experiences, and (ii) in portraying the real-world regulation (incl organised crime, problems of corruption) and dangers of going after these experiences (Itchy and Chewy are points on a wheel that includes Laura and the 119-girl). I see this interest as part of a global movement that includes Sam Harris' take on spirituality without religion and Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhist take on the everyday sublime.
Lynch is against drugs, though. I saw a video where he did a talk about film and meditation, and someone asked if such state of the brain is the same to when using drugs. Lynch replied "well, later we'll show you what drugs will do to your brain."
Right, Oyster Bells. As he should be. In the recent DL documentary, The Art Life, he describes a definitive driving after smoking a joint experience. Elsewhere I mentioned recent research into what psilocybin mushrooms "will do to your brain" - relates in interesting ways to meditation and mystical experiences (and I suspect to some viewing experiences). Lynch is very good at portraying the dangers of intoxication / excess without denying its attractions.
Lynch (and Frost) are obviously very interested in (i) altered states of consciousness (mind-yank viewing experiences, "drugs", alternate realities (incl supposed governmental and scientific conspiracies to keep aspects of the nature of the world hidden), meditation, the supernatural, intense overpowering experiences, and (ii) in portraying the real-world regulation (incl organised crime, problems of corruption) and dangers of going after these experiences (Itchy and Chewy are points on a wheel that includes Laura and the 119-girl). I see this interest as part of a global movement that includes Sam Harris' take on spirituality without religion and Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhist take on the everyday sublime.
Lynch is against drugs, though. I saw a video where he did a talk about film and meditation, and someone asked if such state of the brain is the same to when using drugs. Lynch replied "well, later we'll show you what drugs will do to your brain."
Right, Oyster Bells. As he should be. In the recent DL documentary, The Art Life, he describes a definitive driving after smoking a joint experience. Elsewhere I mentioned recent research into what psilocybin mushrooms "will do to your brain" - relates in interesting ways to meditation and mystical experiences (and I suspect to some viewing experiences). Lynch is very good at portraying the dangers of intoxication / excess without denying its attractions.
Pynchjan, do you think if someone made a story where good things happen to a drug using character, and by the end of the story the person doesn't stop using, that such a work is damaging to society? That it glorifies drug use, and it will raise the number of drug users in real life?
Lynch (and Frost) are obviously very interested in (i) altered states of consciousness (mind-yank viewing experiences, "drugs", alternate realities (incl supposed governmental and scientific conspiracies to keep aspects of the nature of the world hidden), meditation, the supernatural, intense overpowering experiences, and (ii) in portraying the real-world regulation (incl organised crime, problems of corruption) and dangers of going after these experiences (Itchy and Chewy are points on a wheel that includes Laura and the 119-girl). I see this interest as part of a global movement that includes Sam Harris' take on spirituality without religion and Stephen Batchelor's secular Buddhist take on the everyday sublime.
Lynch is against drugs, though. I saw a video where he did a talk about film and meditation, and someone asked if such state of the brain is the same to when using drugs. Lynch replied "well, later we'll show you what drugs will do to your brain."
Right, Oyster Bells. As he should be. In the recent DL documentary, The Art Life, he describes a definitive driving after smoking a joint experience. Elsewhere I mentioned recent research into what psilocybin mushrooms "will do to your brain" - relates in interesting ways to meditation and mystical experiences (and I suspect to some viewing experiences). Lynch is very good at portraying the dangers of intoxication / excess without denying its attractions.
Pynchjan, do you think if someone made a story where good things happen to a drug using character, and by the end of the story the person doesn't stop using, that such a work is damaging to society? That it glorifies drug use, and it will raise the number of drug users in real life?
On balance, research suggests that films or viewing experience don't often affect real life behaviour so directly and simply. Of course, it's bad when it does happen (more damaging for the individual than for society). Film's also guide spectators to question values or rules in productive ways. So, could be, for example, that psilocybin might not be in the folk psychology "drugs" category in the future. Falzon's essay, "Why be Moral?" relates.
On balance, research suggests that films or viewing experience don't often affect real life behaviour so directly and simply. Of course, it's bad when it does happen (more damaging for the individual than for society). Film's also guide spectators to question values or rules in productive ways. So, could be, for example, that psilocybin might not be in the folk psychology "drugs" category in the future. Falzon's essay, "Why be Moral?" relates.
? I'm not getting a clear idea of where you stand (and I'm not gonna look up Falzon's essay).
You said Lynch portrays the dangers of drugs, along with its attractions. Do you think it's wrong or bad if the dangers were ommitted?
I personally think whatever's needed for the story should not be restricted. Bad elements are put there to serve the story, not to be emulated. I think portraying fictional characters in certain ways does not necessarily reflect the author's own views.
On audiences emulating the work, I'm divided. On one hand, geeks into fighting video games don't become violent. On the other hand, I do see kids trying to emulate Kim Kardashian, so it does affect real life behavior.
Oyster Bells,
Here I stand: everyone's work (think also of Itchy) reflects their worldview / philosophy of life, though obviously not as a literal expression of their views. So, I find productive reflection in the portrayal of the range of ways in which characters relate to drugs, from unemployable-but-apparently-lovable Steven Burnett to legally-doubling-our-profits Jerry Horne.
Deciding whether an omission of the dangers is wrong or bad would depend on the particular case, on the kind of film or filmmaker.
Characters don't always - and nor should they - reflect the author's morality. Bret Ellis was accused of being a misogynist because of American Psycho, Iain Banks was accused of being a sick, twisted animal torturer because of The Wasp Factory. Neither could be further from the truth; Bret Ellis is as nice and well adjusted person as you could hope to meet; the book was a sideswipe at the Yuppie culture, which seemed to go over a lot of peoples' heads. Iain Banks was a superb, compassionate and generally all round good guy, who sometimes wrote about uncomfortable things, for the purpose of making a point while telling an interesting story.
In the same vein, not every story has to be a morality play. Sometimes, the good guys don't win, evil triumphs and the girl doesn't get saved.
Fire walk with