Is calling David Lynch's work "self indulgent" a valid criticism?

[psood0nym]

I’ve read David Lynch’s work referred to as “self-indulgent” many times, but is this really a valid criticism? I guess I just don’t understand what’s reprehensible about making a big effort to express something that’s uniquely yours. Isn’t that how new ideas and ways of feeling and thinking often come about, and don’t we want that? What the fuck is wrong with these people? Are they merely resentful because their minds are mediocre, or do they hold some rigid dogma about the purpose of art or what? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

In thinking about this I was reminded of the following quote from Ralph Waldo Emmerson, taken from the beginning of “Self Reliance.”

I READ THE OTHER DAY SOME VERSES written by an eminent painter which were original and not conventional. Always the soul hears an admonition in such lines, let the subject be what it may. The sentiment they instill is of more value than any thought they may contain. To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for always the inmost becomes the outmost — and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgement.

 

[GræyScüll]

any art could be said to be self-indulgent

and as a matter of fact, most art is quite self-indulgent

 

[psood0nym]

^Yeah, exactly. I mean I understand how a film about blood diamonds or a civil war that's not being covered has a social and political function in addition to being the expression of the artists involved, but that's certainly not the only kind of film that should be made. So I'm confused by what the criticism is supposed to mean.

 

[GræyScüll]

it MAY have something to do with how hard it is for some to critique such an abstract piece of art that doesn't follow a typical format and therefore bewilders typical criticism.

 

[psood0nym]

Yeah, I know his films frustrate a lot of people who don't have the will and/or the capacity to appreciate them. In a way "self-indugent" as a criticism is a lot like I've seen "pretentious" used in practice -- the ignorant, stupid and close minded keep it holstered to pull out any time their egos are threatened in the hope that it will fool anyone willing to listen into thinking they have a defensible perspective.

No offense to anyone who doesn't like Lynch intended -- I'm sure there's other reasons not to like him, too.

 

[GræyScüll]

yep.

that quote sounds like Emerson

 

[jpgrdnr]

I agree that lynch is self indulgent. But I see it more as a positive where he might shoot a scene off the cuff. Inland empire if I'm not mistaken was shot handheld and as a film seems quite self indulgent, it was long and didn't make much sense, scenes where he was being confusing for confusings sake. I mean he inserted scenes from a short he did which had nothing to so with the movie as a whole. I prefer the opinion that lynch has become his own cliched irony where if u toss a man in a suit facing a duck uttering a phrase "the unseen next level" with some weird industrial ambient and there you go its lynch. Ah that playstation ad.

I thinks its more his hidden rebel side and that fact he lives in LA land of Hollywood shit central.

 

[psood0nym]

Inland Empire may be my favorite film of all time! Here's a video review from one of the Two Percenter Club who loves it to educate all of you poor unwashed masses.

 

[L2R]

i don't want to live in a world where david lynch is not self indulgent. then again, is that same criticism leveled at "the straight story"?

 

[psood0nym]

^No, but unlike most of Lynch's stuff that was written by someone else (imdb says John Roach and Mary Sweeney). I paid special attention during the credits because I couldn't believe what I was seeing -- it's a little like Twin Peaks without and weirdness or darkness, just good small town kindness. I love that movie -- one too many sweeping pans of the countryside and all; the main character reminds me a lot of my grandpa who I was fairly close to as a child, and I couldn't help but get choked up at the feelings of respect, love, and sympathy I have for simple men with big hearts and honest and determined convictions, absurd or not. Rest assured that David Lynch is gloriously and consistently self-indulgent when left to his own devices, and that at some genuine level he's fully justified in his artistic choices.

 

[GræyScüll]

^No, but unlike most of Lynch's stuff that was written by someone else (imdb says John Roach and Mary Sweeney). I paid special attention during the credits because I couldn't believe what I was seeing -- it's a little like Twin Peaks without and weirdness or darkness, just good small town kindness. I love that movie -- one too many sweeping pans of the countryside and all; the main character reminds me a lot of my grandpa who I was fairly close to as a child, and I couldn't help but get choked up at the feelings of respect, love, and sympathy I have for simple men with big hearts and honest and determined convictions, absurd or not. Rest assured that David Lynch is gloriously and consistently self-indulgent when left to his own devices, and that at some genuine level he's fully justified in his artistic choices.

i like this alot. and those parts in bold especially.

 

[silverwheel]

I've never understood the "self-indulgent" criticism. To me, being self-indulgent has far more to do with how someone works, rather than the end product they create. Michael Cimino and Michelangelo Antonioni - they were self-indulgent. Not because they followed their artistic ambitions, but because they wasted a ton of time and money in doing so. I think Lynch is better described as "eccentric."

 

[axl blaze]

eccentric? yes. self-indulgent? yes. genius? yes

 

[CXC]

it MAY have something to do with how hard it is for some to critique such an abstract piece of art that doesn't follow a typical format and therefore bewilders typical criticism.

Totally disagree with this. In my perspective Lynch does follow a typical format as there are many similarities between his movies. I did enjoy watching his movies though. Yes, they are artistic masterpieces in a way, but at the same time there are several aspects I dislike. Lynch often tries to misled or confuse the audience (think about lost high way, mullholland drive or twin peaks). That an sich is not problem to me, but what bothers me is that the confusion is just part of the entertainment; it's not really going anywhere. Certain things remain mysterious. It's like he wants to stress the fact that it's his movie, that he is the one in charge. This aspect might appeal to some, but personally I think this is a rather cheap trick. I also think his movies promote a conservative worldview. The world depicted in his films is generally dominated by macho male figures and women are commonly treated as objects. Lynch's movies are in no way a critic on society or anything else. They are claimed to be controversial, but in fact they are hollywood pure sang. Yes, on the surface they differ from the stereotypical hollywood pictures, but underneath there's no difference. His movies are pure entertainment and they don't provoque thoughts about anything related to real life simply because none of the characters in his movies are realistic (the straight story is probably an exception on this). It's true that his strories are less conventional than the average hollywood pic, but it's with movies like this that the american film industry is trying to score with a slightly more intelligent crowd (also think of inception).

No offence to Lynch lovers intended!

 

[GræyScüll]

Totally disagree with this. In my perspective Lynch does follow a typical format as there are many similarities between his movies.

YES LYNCH does have a certain way, but it's HIS way and that's it. I didn't mean that each one of his movies was completely different than the other, I meant that LYNCH is completely different from the others. See the difference?

 

[alasdairm]

a movie, especially from somebody like david lynch, tends to be his specific vision of the script brought to life. it's the director's vision which drives the process and, one assumes, the director's vision which is manifest as the final product.

self indulgent means indulgent of one's own desires. i would imagine most directors are self-indulgent with specific regard to the movie they are creating. i don't think it's a bad thing. to me, it's hardly noteworthy...

alasdair

 

[psood0nym]

Lynch often tries to misled or confuse the audience (think about lost high way, mullholland drive or twin peaks). That an sich is not problem to me, but what bothers me is that the confusion is just part of the entertainment; it's not really going anywhere. Certain things remain mysterious. It's like he wants to stress the fact that it's his movie, that he is the one in charge. This aspect might appeal to some, but personally I think this is a rather cheap trick. I also think his movies promote a conservative worldview. The world depicted in his films is generally dominated by macho male figures and women are commonly treated as objects. Lynch's movies are in no way a critic on society or anything else. They are claimed to be controversial, but in fact they are hollywood pure sang. Yes, on the surface they differ from the stereotypical hollywood pictures, but underneath there's no difference. His movies are pure entertainment and they don't provoque thoughts about anything related to real life simply because none of the characters in his movies are realistic (the straight story is probably an exception on this).

I disagree with the idea that Lynch's films are merely entertainment. It's true that you can't analyze them as you would most other films; there is no deep deductive logic to them -- their content is experienced synthetically rather than analytically. Lynch is not trying to say something meaningful so much as he's trying to evoke a meaningful experience in the viewer -- and so I sort of understand why people might conclude as you have. In fact, very intelligent people have concluded similarly; appreciating Lynch is less a capacity of intelligence than it is of aesthetic perspective.

There's an interview on the "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me" DVD where an actor relates the disappointment he felt while reading the largely negative critical reaction to the film. He exclaimed vehemently that they don’t know the difference between art and a movie, that witnessing the juxtaposition of horror and beauty does something to our hearts, our minds, our souls… He of course spoke with inspiration and that is why that section of the DVD ended with him. He also mentioned that Lynch doesn’t always know why he directs certain ways; sometimes he just gets a feeling.

Feeling my way through most of Lynch’s films is the only way I can enjoy them, so it was a relief to hear that the process of creation isn’t nearly so analytical as a logical solution to them would seem to demand. The films seem to have there own internal logic, and they only work on that particular subjective level in any sense of definitive continuity. But inquiry at that level reveals secrete passages through the subconscious. His films, or rather moments in them, are like a puzzle whose completed picture is that of yet another puzzle that’s pieces are skillfully hewn together in conflict with their forms, yet the exquisitely fragmentary images produced are a fuller representation of their subject’s reality than the one demanded by objective coherence.