I believe those who didn't understand a dime from david lynch movies, also won't get anything from bunuel's movies. It is true that lynch had inspried a lot from Bunuel and he had put lots of surrealism into his movies, starting with "Un Chien Andalou". Bunuel doesn't want from us to think about "what happened and what should have take place next." So as Lynch, he never made his point as separating what is real and what's imaginary.
share[deleted]
I don't think there's much of a comparison, but you're most likely right that those who don't like Lynch probably would not like Bunuel.
Bunuel, like the other poster said, was extremely political - his films almost exclusively revolve around issues of class, liberty, oppression, etc.
Lynch is not even remotely political; in fact, when he ventures into that territory, he proves himself to be incredibly ignorant, even stupid. Lynch's films are about more existential, personal crises. Lynch's films are very smart in my opinion, when he sticks to what he knows.
panik65 - at what times has Lynch tried to make political statements yet came up ignorant?
shareIn any interview I've seen him in where he's asked about it?
shareYa, well thats different than comparing it to Bunuel who made comments in his own cinema. I'm not arguing with you mind you, I'm sure Lynch would come up ignorant - Just couldn't think of any times in his films that he had tried to be.
shareDon't get me wrong - I love David Lynch. This thread is interesting since I do not consider Lynch a surrealist at all. He is a mystic, and a really interesting one. Just because somethings odd or absurd does not make it surrealist.
share[deleted]
Lynch is about as pure of a surrealist as you will ever find in cinema. Buñuel and Dalí's "Un chien andalou", as well as their "L'age d'or", and Cocteau's "The Blood of a Poet", are just about the only films in the entire annals of cinematic history that could really possibly be considered more true to the surrealist movement than Lynch is. And even those films aren't even one ounce more surrealistic than, say, the dream sequence in Lynch's "Eraserhead". Of course, that was Lynch at his most surreal -- he never quite matched that again -- but make no mistake about it, Lynch is undoubtedly a surrealist. His films, by and large, are distinctly oneirogenic -- they revolve around dream logic, they make heavy use of metaphor and figurative interpretation, and they present reality as it would exist in a dream. It doesn't get more surrealist than that.
shareThere's absolutely a comparison. A big one. Granted, there's plenty to contrast as well -- they're different in many ways, more ways than they are similar, but there are distinct similarities that are pretty difficult not to notice. First and foremost: surrealism. Buñuel was the first director to ever bring surrealism to cinema. Famous surrealist painter Salvador Dalí worked with Buñuel on his debut, a 1929 short film "Un chien andalou", and his 1930 feature "L'age d'or", both of which are purely surrealist works (Jean Cocteau would later follow his example with the 1932 film "The Blood of a Poet"). Not only were Buñuel and Dalí's films the first ever instance of surrealism in cinema, it was really the first time anyone had ever tried to do anything with cinema other than entertain. It was the first time a director had tried to achieve true art (on a level comparable to painting or music, for example) with cinema. This set the tone for all artistic cinema from then until now. Very people seem to truly understand the impact Buñuel had on cinema with those two films. David Lynch, who I love, could not have existed as a director without Buñuel, or he would have been an entirely different filmmaker if he did. Surrealism is about creating oneirogenic art. By definition, it attempts to recreate the state of the dream. It tries to capture the nature and feel of the dream. It's about trying to "resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality." Based on this description, it's hard not to see the immense similarities between Buñuel and Lynch. Again, they are also extremely different in many ways. But both filmmakers were heavily involved with the use of dream logic, the application of metaphor, the use of the figurative instead of the literal, and the complete breakdown of form, as well as conventional narrative structure. The pencil/eraser dream sequence in Lynch's debut film, "Eraserhead", is an exercise in dream logic almost identical to the type of sequence you would see in "L'age d'or" or "Un chien andalou". And while Buñuel never made a truly, fully surrealist film after those two films, he would certainly recycle elements of surrealism throughout his career. "The Phantom of LIberty" and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" may not be bona fide exercises in surrealism, but they certainly utilize surrealist elements, and the general nonsensical structure of the dream -- moving from place to place, situation to situation, scenario to scenario, without knowing why or how you got there -- waking up in a certain reality and simply accepting it as real. That is the nature of the dream, and it echoes through both Buñuel's and Lynch's entire bodies of work.
share[deleted]
I enjoyed both Un Chien Andalou and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, but didn't like Mulholland Dr. much. So no.
No, I'm not really vegan. Stop asking.
You're watching the wrong Lynch movies like most people . . . check out his collection of shorts (especially Alphabet and Grandmother) and Blue Velvet and most of all Eraserhead . . .. then you'll see what that person up there is talking about .. I also believe Lynch was very inspired by Svankmajer especially in his earlier works like the ones above . .. there's not much difference at all in either of their shorts . .. I also understand Un Chien Andalou is part of the reoson for Fulci's eye piercing fetish . ..
All right. I watched Blue Velvet a few weeks ago and liked it.
No, I'm not really vegan. Stop asking.
Awesome, it's a very rad movie I especially like Dean Stockwell lip synching In Dreams and Hopper's return to his not so clean days . . . But honestly you're looking for Eraserhead if you're looking for his surreal movies, or his shorts . .. both are available from Absurda and are actually nicer versions than they look like . .. his shorts collection is usually a bit more expensive as well so I'd go for Eraserhead next . .. Hope you see it soon, it's wonderful . .. .
.. . and I hope you're being honest when you say you're not actually a vegan
Yes, my signature is honest. People don't always get that my username is a joke, and ask if I'm really vegan.
No, I'm not really vegan. Stop asking.
I am a HUGE fan of lynch's works, but cannot get into any Bunuels' work aside from Un Chien Andalou and to some extent Discreet Charm. I have seen El, Viaranda, L'age D'or, Land Without Bread and one or two others, and they just didn't do it for me...
Perhaps it's that the surrealism is much more understated than I like, or maybe I haven't found that ONE movie that agrees with me.
(I'll probably track down Exterminating Angel or Criminal Life of Archibaldo De La Cruz next, as they appear to be much more overt in surrealism.)
I dont mean any offence at all thats fine that you dont like Bunuel and prefer his earlier Dali work but I dont think tracking down his others will help he is somewhat of a bore as much as I love the guy. If you are more interested in the surreal type of flicks check out Jodorowsky and Svankmajer
shareYES!! I adore Jan Svankmajer's work and Lynch's early stuff is definitely inspired by it, to some degree.
We've met before, haven't we?
David Lynch was not inspired by Bunuel. He says in a few different interviews that he was completely unfamiliar with Bunuel, or even Surrealism for that matter until after he made Eraserhead. And although both directors use a lot of surreal imagery in their films, it's difficult to compare them. Lynch does it for the sake of strangeness, and is not looking for interpretation. Bunuel, on the other hand, used it to make biting social and religious satire.
shareLynch has admitted to now being in love with Bunuel films. And he even said that the ear in Blue Velvet was meant to be a reference to the hand in Un Chien Andalou. The ants crawling out of the stigmata in Un chien andalou are crawling out of the ear canal in Blue Velvet. He also said that image was a deciding factor in going ahead with the film.
shareI'm pretty sure THIS person actually knows what they are talking about . .. AND has a way radder name as well . .. I'd say it's true .. I'm sorta curious WHERE you read or saw Lynch say these things though ? ?? A Blue Velvet Commentary track maybe ?? I love both directors very much and like to see anything involving either . ..
shareI dont mean to be a jerk but are you not planning on answering WHERE you read this about Lynch ? it isnt that I dont believe you I would just like to see it as I completely agree that the ear scene is a LITTLE too familiar after seeing Un Chien.
shareUMMMmmm .. . I'm pretty sure you're lying, at least about Lynch not knowing what surrealism was until making Eraserhead . .. pick up "Short films by David Lynch" and you'll see not only that he KNEW of it but that he was MAKING it even during his first feature and more prominently in his 2nd (Alphabet) and 3rd (Grandmother) . .. And also I've seen about 15 interviews with Lynch and have NEVER heard him say ANYTHING like that (and the man talks A LOT and tends to ramble) ... I sure wish people wouldn't say things unless they know what they are talking about, it happens so very often on here I see ... I'd like to see these interviews sir . .. cause I'm sure they don't exist .. Also it's quite obvious Lynch had to stray away from those types of surreal movies (which I feel were probobly the kinds of films he WANTED to make) as his movies become easier and easier to follow . .. . . If you don't believe me, buy the shorts, grab your copies of Eraserhead and Blue Velvet (EVERYONE SHOULD own them), rent his later works (Wild at heart, Mulholand Dr., Lost Hightway, etc.) and watch them in order of when he made them . ..
Bunuel, on the other hand, used it to make biting social and religious satire.
good then that means I'll like Bunuel. Even though I have to research Lynch's films I like them
share
It's a LITTLE different though, don't think you'll be getting the exact same type of movies . .. Bunuel's most surreal are Un Chien Andalou and L'age D'or which he did with Dali, after that he only kind of dabbled in surrealism, almost in the same way Lynch decided to tone it down a little . . it IS hard to deny the similarities in themes between the two though, insects are always prominent for both among MANY others . . and the ear with the ants in Blue Velvet is VERY similar to the ants coming out of the hand and the severed hand in the street in Un Chien Andalou . .. ... but I have a feeling Lynch might just be off his rocker, which results in creativity . . And get the short films of Lynch as well, Grandmother and Alphabet are super rad . ..
I hated this film, but I love every Lynch film I have seen. The two directors' films have nothing in common as far as I am concerned.
shareLuis Bunuel is WAAAAAAY better than Lynch
lynch is like quentin tarantino
I agree with the first part but not the second . . . .. Tarintino, although sometimes amusing, is nothing more than a recycling bin of other better movies and scripts . ... but I do admit he is fun at times . .. being a lover of Samurai films, Sonny Chiba, Leone and Fulci movies and Morricone's music it was hard not to enjoy some parts in the Kill Bill series and he has a way with words and actors as in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction .. . and he wrote True Romance which was a neat story . .. so, he's a flat out copier, but he's sometimes enjoyable, I think anyway
Both Tarantino and David Lynch are post-modernists and they're both great at what they do, imho. There's no point in criticizing either for "copying" other artists because that's the point in the first place. Unlike what some people seem to believe, Lynch also "copies" a lot of scenes and ideas from other films, but he's very good at it, just like Tarantino (although they're very different filmmakers - Blue Velvet is probably the only film that has some remote touch points with Tarantino).
Buñuel, however, is definitely a modernist filmmaker and the tone (and the point) of his films is very different from Lynch films. He's much more political and socially philosophical than Lynch.
I would like to know, though, just how and when was Lynch ever even slightly "political" in making a film... I've seen all his films, including shorts, and I'm at a loss recalling political angles.
Last film watched:
Diary of a Chambermaid by Luis Buñuel - 8/10
The difference between Bunuel and Lynch is that when Bunuel does surrealism he knows what he's doing, while Lynch (post Twin Peaks) comes across as a self-indulgent dilettante.
share[deleted]
well, lynch kinda comes off as a self-indulgent dilettante in general. he always just wings it on the set and feeling the movie out as he goes. he never went into any of his films knowing firmly what he wanted and he has admitted that. but, it's that sixth sense of his that manages to pull out these good movies. i thought lost highway was drivel, though. wasn't into that one.
by the way, i saw discreet charm of the borgoisie for the first time today...definite 10/10. yeah and i'm a newbie with bunuel (first of his i saw) and i'm excited to check out his filmography. don't worry, i don't need any pointers. i know which ones to see. i'm bout to put on belle de jour now.
[deleted]
I do not see much in common between Bunuel and Lynch. Lynch's movies, at least many of them, "make sense" in a sequential way. For instance, Mulholland Drive was a masterpiece (in my opinion) because it did "tell a story" in the classic sense. I do not believe that Bunuel's film shares this quality.
shareIts probably said before, but here it comes again. Your statement is wrong! It is not true that Lynch is inspired by Buñuel, or even the surrealist movement, this he has stated himself. "I still haven't seen a lot of Buñuel...I don't even know that much about surrealism. I guess it's just my take on what's floating by." - David Lynch
sharewell, lynch kinda comes off as a self-indulgent dilettante in general. he always just wings it on the set and feeling the movie out as he goes. he never went into any of his films knowing firmly what he wanted and he has admitted that.
Its probably said before, but here it comes again. Your statement is wrong! It is not true that Lynch is inspired by Buñuel, or even the surrealist movement
"In short, the movies of Lynch are self-contained. They don't seem to be affected in the least by reality, neither they show some degree of concern about the external world. Lynch never makes a statement about the nature of things or human beings. Neither politically, philosophically, sociologically or even psychologically speaking. In that sense they are mere escapism like the films of Tarantino or Tony Scott. Differently presented, but mere escapism after all. "
I disagree with you.
Let's remember Eraserhead a bit. Basically it's about a fear, of every man I should say, of becoming a father. Doesn't this concerns the real word ?
Lynch, for me, shows how strange reality really is for him and that everyone has his own personal take on reality, in his case his movies.
"Cut with the night into mine heart" - Wrest
Lynch works in the uncanny and flirts with the surreal. Lynch is all about mood and emotion. Bunuel was a surrealist/political aggravator who flirted with dadaism. Both are able to perform the function of building a linear/traditional film. Lynch did it with Straight Story for example.
share