 |
Subseq. Pages - TP/David Lynch
|
|
| | | |
|
Underestimated, Powerful, Tragically Cut
Rating: 10 of 10 
No, I haven't read the book yet. No, I haven't seen the (unauthorized) long versions yet. But yes, I liked this movie, and yes, it did make sense to me. Is there a contradiction in that? Not to me, but according to the bulk of comments I've read on the respective IMDb page. Most striking of all is the notion that David Lynch was the worst choice for this movie. Pardon? I guess someone is mistaken here. This is a David Lynch movie. Go see this crappy Star Wars if you want cheap entertainment. See 'Dune' if you wanna see a great movie. But some of the comments show a truth: It is about expectations. Why does everybody howl at the thought of a book transferred to the movies? Of course it will not be the same! It's a different medium! Why does everybody exclaim their outrage over David Lynch's style? They expected something different, very well. But in 'Dune', Lynch does things strange to the sf genre - he 'Lynchifies' it; and I can somehow understand that some people would be surprised about the direction his style takes at times. But no one having seen any of his other works should be surprised by this. And for me, I'd say he was the perfect choice for this movie.
The film has its problems still, but these arise from the producer's side, not from Lynch's, who didn't have final cut. So after approx. ninety minutes the movie starts to increase its pace, it starts to rush through the story. David Lynch himself wasn't happy with the end result, but I guess that's always the case when you have to give over control to somebody else. But still, even if the movie could have been a lot better than it is, there is nearly no point for criticism. Most things end up different from than they might've been - that might be sad sometimes, but it can also be a chance. And some things are that great that even if you take something away, it will still work. It might not be what was originally intended, but that's somehow in a very ironical sense a very aspect of Lynch's own work - the organic aspect of it, things you don't get under control. He made something and had to watch how it was altered by somebody else. But I do not believe in coincidence, not really.
This movie is extraordinary in several aspects, like production design, effects (for its time), and acting. When you have people like Kyle MacLachlan, Brad Dourif and Patrick Stewart, what else do you need? Lynchian imagery sneeks into this giant studio film with pictures of water, of waves and of smoke. The music sounds less Lynchian, but it fits perfectly into the film. I don't know when I'll read the book(s), but I do not feel it's necessary, the film is self-sustaining enough. The things which cannot be explained - isn't this a Lynchian aspect too? Why does everybody want an explanation all the time? Perhaps there also is none? I must admit I didn't really like the movie when I watched it some years ago as a kid in a dubbed version with maybe the first half of the movie missing because somehow the VCR screwed it up. But when I saw it now in its entirety, I was captured by it, it was breathtaking, full of beautiful images, and with a very drastic edge of darkness.
September 24th, 1998
|
