Is it right to Lynch-ify this movie? - The Straight Story (1999) Discussion

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

Neither. It´s not personal - and it´s also not uncommon to create larger metaphors this way, even if the characteristics of the real life prototype don´t always match up. And since all these negative character traits are highly interpretational and merely hinted at in rather obscure ways, it cannot be called ´bashing´ by any means now can it? For one thing, Lynch never was a literalist and for second - his films have always been emotionally complex so there´s no reason to believe he suddenly made a simplistic and single minded morality tale to "celebrate the Americana" or whatever nonsense it was that the mainstream critics used to write about it. It doesn´t add up.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] militiagung64 15 years ago

The problem with David Lynch is that people are going to look for his usual dark, weird stuff in movies when it's not there, and in the process they end up bastardizing the movie.

It would be like if Spike Lee decided to make a movie with absolutely no racial commentary, people would still look for it and imagine it where it shouldn't be.

So, I think that people have taken those things out of context. The film itself has Lynchian qualities, but the story is pure. I mean, aside from the fact that it's a true story, Lynch didn't even touch the screenplay.

The thing's hollow-it goes on forever-and-oh my God-it's full of stars!

reply

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

Believe what you want; the signs however are there whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. And there´s no way to convince me Lynch suddenly made a film as simple minded as most appear to think he did. It contains subtle, visual information just like his other, more typical work - and obviously, visual information isn´t something you´d find in a script no matter who wrote it. Besides, nobody argued it´s a predominantly dark film - it obviously isn´t.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] thecultofhorror 15 years ago

Three obvious lynch scenes.

1.The Camera crane following the woman sunbathing then zooming in on Alvins house and hearing his fall and not seeing it.
2.The Highway lines.
3.Lenghty Dialouge in a wide frame.

www.myspace.com/deadravensrock
www.youtube.com/nightofthelepus

reply

[–] StatelessRich 15 years ago

A lot of the humor seemed quite Lynch-ian to me, as well as the silliness of the grabber scene.

reply

[–] jtf1986 13 years ago

Simple isn't the same thing as simple minded.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

Yeah, well, TSS is neither.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] schnee72 15 years ago

"Is that a lawn mower?"

I lmao at that part.

reply

[–] 6502freak 15 years ago

This is a very strange topic. How can one "Lynch-ify" a film when it was obviously made by David Lynch?

Lynch is a painter, and while this film, unlike many of his other films, has an easy to follow plot, Lynch nevertheless gives us lots of hints and additional information about the subtext of this film through visual metaphors. It's part of his very complex cinematic vocabulary he effectively utilizes in his films. Pictures are his language.

For example, the moment Rose came in a the beginning of the film pointing us to a bird house she just made with a red housetop, I instantly knew that this would have some kind of significance. Later, we learn from Alvin about the incident when her kids die in the house fire.

This film is every bit as complex as Eraserhead, Lost Highway or Mulholland Dr. But I think only this time, unlike Elephant Man, Lynch successfully manages to combine multiple layers of his artistry accessible to different kind of audiences. It's a really magnificent film.

reply

[–] Harlesden_P_Ruffkins 14 years ago

I don't doubt there are layers of complexity, but it is possible to over-read and see metaphor and links where there are none. I have seen and read many incidents where critics 'find' things that the artist plainly says were not intentional.

The thing about the birdhouses does seem like a legitimate point though. While it isn't explained to the audience, it isn't exactly hidden either. It is more like a character trait, her longing to be a mother being diverted into making homes for birds.

To claim it is as complex as Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. is pushing things a bit. Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. are nigh on impossible to understand on repeated viewings, watching The Straight Story one is enough to know what actually happened. Straight Story is perhaps more successful than those two as it isn't anywhere near as maddeningly esoteric.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uptonogood-1 14 years ago

the story takes place in iowa. it's conceivable that he picked up on this story because of his ties to iowa -- look up maharishi. lynch frequents fairfield, iowa of all places.

reply

[–] konam 13 years ago

Well, I guess you can find metaphor anywhere you like, be it on movies, music, etc.. or even in Life itself.

But I believe Lynch wasnt trying to put too much into this one, as the title says, its his straight movie - No fluff here.

------------
- He moves his lips when he reads. What does that tell you about him?

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Actually, the real problem is that Lynch fans now fill every ambiguous detail in the bleakest manner possible. There's no doubt that this isn't your conventional "journey" story - there has clearly been much tragedy in both Alvin's and Rose's lives, as is revealed slowly and gradually to the audience, and there's no doubt that Alvin's a flawed person much like anyone else who's simply searching for redemption - but to automatically assume the worst of Alvin reveals more about what hungry Lynch fans WANT TO SEE rather than what actually is SHOWN.

In the end, it is kinda straight forward and there isn't anything wrong about that.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

But it is you that only wants to see certain things and ignores what´s actually on the screen; to wit, any seasoned speaker of "lynchian" knows that he´s never openly in-your-face with his stuff, always prefers to communicate through more subtle visual (and verbal) clues. Why should TSS be any different? Just because you WANT to see the film as this wishy-washy, cuddly-cutesy piece of dumbed down humble pie Americana - a hosianna to these same squeeky-clean picket fences Lynch has been savagely subverting throughout his whole filmography, shown them for the fragile facade that they are, covering up murder, abuse and sexual perversion. It is clear Lynch has never believed in such an utopia, and for a good reason - it doesn´t exist.

But I also think your conclusion that Alvin was depicted as an inherently bad man, is off the mark - unless we´re to assume that all these thousands upon thousands of men returning from the unthinkable horrors of war, scarred for life, were inherently "bad". In fact, they´re precisely "flawed", as it were - traumatized, seeking comfort from the bottle and ultimately pouring their frustration out on their families and others that happened to be around, for there was really no alternative outlet, no psychiatric counseling or the like (notoriously, this massive problem was ignored entirely by the powers-that-be for fear of showing their "war heroes" in a bad light, thusly robbing the country of some of its victorious, righteous glory. It´s really a disgrace how these men were left to their own devices entirely... and when someone finally makes a thoughtful film about this issue, people act exactly like those aforementioned powers-that-be, disingeniously insisting none of this horror is even there. None of it ever happened. End of story. Ain´t Umurika great?!) So any "evil" doesn´t even enter the equation and besides, in his many conversations Alvin rather comes across as an essentially nice and decent man; if anything, he´s a victim here.

And I agree that the film is not all bleak or negative through and through - indeed the very fact that he embarks on that journey of atonement, is a positive sign itself, a sign that Alvin has finally obtained a degree of wisdom, overcome the bitterness and actively seeking redemption, forgiveness. Even if and when he can´t get rid of some of his more problematic character traits such as this stupid stubbornness he displays on many occasions - note how he keeps resolutely denying all help offered to him, rather preferring to die than change his diet or quit smoking (ironically, many seem to think this is something commendable - all hail the good old all-American individualism that must prevail no matter how counterproductive & dumb it may be). Yet how does he ultimately reach Lyle´s house? With a helpful stranger pushing him over the brink with the tractor; a little lesson right there, one would think.

So all in all, like every other Lynch film, there´s both light and darkness in TSS - more darkness, yes, but Lynch rarely if ever gives up all hope. And he undoubtedly empathizes with this feisty old codger of a protagonist here, whatever his faults; just because the film isn´t some celebration of cosy Americana, doesn´t mean Lynch is nihilistic or cynical here, playing some sick joke on us.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

But who said that I see the film as this "wishy-washy, cuddly-cutesy piece of dumbed down humble pie Americana"? (Similarly, I never quite came to a conclusion that the old man was "inherently bad". "Flawed" is the word I used and that's apparently a word we both agree on). I quite clearly acknowledge that there seem to have been some abnormally tragic moments in the Straights' lives (or, at least, the two that we see) that's shaped their existence thus far (there's undeniably a certain melancholy to those early scenes). And it's obvious that Alvin's not really the best person when it comes to maintaining a healthy relationship with his brother. That he didn't try to make "peace" with him until he's reminded that he and his brother aren't for long on this earth does make one wonder. But that's the point. He isn't some perfect, heroic man. He's been scarred from all the sh-t life's thrown at him; most importantly, he's clearly been affected by the war as is obvious by the harrowing details of an incident which he recounts to a stranger at the bar.

But to read into the visuals presented a puzzle about how Alvin's an abusive, sexually perverse wife-beater who lost his wife and children when he drunkenly crashed his car (which apparently is the only plausible reason for how he lost his "license"... the only narrative clue on which this whole ludicrous story is pegged - that and his relationship with his brother, the absence of his other children, who don't "have" to be dead, etc.) is a little beyond ridiculous. Yes, if that were the case, the film would certainly feel like a "sick joke". Luckily, that's NOT the case. This is a film by the surreal Lynch, sure, but he's certainly more optimistic in here than he ever was; the aesthetic does not lie and conceal how he "really" feels about the redemption of Alvin Straight. It's all pretty straight-forward. In my opinion, anyway.

And what's wrong with doing stuff on your "own terms" (and more importantly, what's so "American" about that... I certainly didn't know that that was an American concept)? He didn't want no help because he didn't feel he deserved any and this was something he wanted to do "himself". Stubborn, maybe, but I think it's a very human quality. And his disregard for the doctor's requests for an operation and tests is understandable... he didn't want to spend what little time he had left sleeping in a hospital bed connected to machines. Many are apprehensive of spending their last few days like that and it's not cheap exactly either. (BTW, I don't recall him saying a "no" to the smoking and diet requests, just silence. Plus, who the heck is able to get rid of all their problematic traits, anyway? No one, that's who.) In any case, you're right: what's important is that he had the courage to embark on the journey at all. And there's the optimism and hope that I keep babbling about, especially in the way Lynch captures his journey. Laurens Walking etc etc.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"But who said that I see the film as this "wishy-washy, cuddly-cutesy piece of dumbed down humble pie Americana"".

Anyone who falls for Alvin´s act as this wise old man and insists these tragic moments you speak about, just "happened" to him, does that. It´s such a cosy melancholia one can revel in.

"Alvin´s an abusive, sexually perverse wife-beater who lost his wife and children while he crashed his car".

Firstly, who said anything about any sexual perversion? Also, perhaps I should have noted I don´t necessarily agree with every word or conclusion in the analysis presented - especially as some speculations are formulated as fact etc. But knowing Lynch, one knows the car accident episode isn´t just some random thing and adding it to the fact Alvin has lost his licence, gives a rather clear indication he´d been involved in some road mishap. And considering the numbers mentioned in the scene, how they match with Alvin´s and his daughter´s offspring, we can, again, conclude it is likely some of his kids perished in the accident. However, it was not proposed that his children or grandchildren are all dead - but they´re not around, and apparently have no contact with Alvin, which certainly indicates some kind of rift between them and Alvin (and the episode with the pregnant runaway, where Alvin preaches about the importance of a family unit, is a dead giveaway if ever there was one).

"He´s certainly more optimistic in here than he ever was".

OK, he does find some reserves within himself to do the right thing at long last, but that doesn´t change the fact he´d f-cked up his entire life, done some terrible things and has got nothing to look forward to now. Not particularly joyous. I´d say Inland Empire is more optimistic, all in all. And Fire Walk With Me or Blue Velvet just about equal in these regards (the final impact of the former bears particularly strong resemblence to TSS).

"And what´s wrong with doing stuff on "your own terms"?"

You´re seriously asking me what is "wrong" with Alvin flatly refusing all medical attention as well as to quit smoking and give up food detrimental to his health (yes, he doesn´t SAY anything to that, but the very next thing he does when the film cuts to the next scene, is light a cigar - and he keeps munching on wieners for the rest of the film), even though he´s informed his death is imminent if he doesn´t change his ways? That doesn´t strike you as kind of, you know, stupid? Also, concerning the incident where Alvin takes a shotgun to a lawnmower, it is indeed blatantly indicative of a bad temper and a VERY serious anger management problem. And I don´t think I´ll be in the mood to address this particular topic again. Evuh!

"I certainly didn´t know that that was an American concept".

It is characteristic to American spirit more than anywhere else, probably. The frontier cowboy capitalism, culture of "self made men" are deeply ingrained in the American psyche as the country keeps foolishly holding on to this "every man for himself" philosophy, even though - as mentioned in another discussion recently - nearly a third of the country is dwelling below the poverty line. TSS isn´t some celebration of the Amrican way of life, it´s a scathing critique thereof.

"Who the hell is able to get rid of all their problematic traits, anyway. No one, that´s who".

I suppose my grandfather´s name was No One, then, because he did just that - give up smoking at the age of 73 or 74 when put on the spot similarly to Alvin. If a man is smart enough to value his life over his stubborn individualism, he WILL give up those things.

"Laurens walking etc etc".

What-what-what? Why do I keep seeing this phrase... "laurens walking"... and what does it mean? Is it in code?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Hm, your message seems like it's gone through a bit of a redraft... looks and feels a bit different from when I last read it. Anyway...

Anyone who falls for Alvin´s act as this wise old man and insists these tragic moments you speak about, just "happened" to him, does that. It´s such a cosy melancholia one can revel in.

I should probably go back and confirm but I don't think - or, I don't hope - that I suggested that all these things "happened" to him (although we both agreed to some extent that they did, i.e. the horrors of war, etc.). Haven't I already said that he's obviously not very good at maintaining a healthy relationship with his relatives? And well, wisdom does come with age and, again, I don't see a point of difference here either - we've agreed that it was certainly "wiser" of him to make that journey than not to.

But knowing Lynch, one knows the car accident episode isn´t just some random thing and adding it to the fact Alvin has lost his licence, gives a rather clear indication he´d been involved in some road mishap. And considering the numbers mentioned in the scene, how they match with Alvin´s and his daughter´s offspring, we can, again, conclude it is likely some of his kids perished in the accident.

So someone who isn't well acquainted with Lynch's other works is at a disadvantage here? Just how important is authorial intent anyway? And how can you be so sure? Certain patterns 'do' emerge in the world; there is, after all, such a thing as coincidence. Perhaps that scene was meant to be evocative of the 14 kids whose current whereabouts are unknown and whose lives are just fragile as the deers these woman keeps running over (and yeah, I don't doubt that they're estranged and all)... rather than a reminder of how Alvin got some of 'em killed in a similar accident. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. BTW, I don't mean to be difficult; I'm just genuinely curious. I'm just not entirely comfortable with taking such a strict interpretation of that almost surreal scene. But, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll throw in a "eh, whatever works for you, I guess".

I´d say Inland Empire is more optimistic, all in all. And Fire Walk With Me or Blue Velvet just about equal in these regards

I haven't seen FWWM but the others were certainly more 'bleaker'. At least, the aesthetic was. Here, the approach was certainly more warmer and a lot more sympathetic. Yes, despite the dark undercurrent.

And I don´t think I´ll be in the mood to address this particular topic again. Evuh!

Evuhh? Not EVUH! OK. Even if I agree that, fine, he's stubborn and stupid, it doesn't really make me feel any less sympathy for the old man. I guess I'm sympathetic even to a person who's got such faults. I have them too, you see...

give up smoking at the age of 73 or 74 when put on the spot similarly to Alvin.

While that is indeed a commendable achievement for your grandfather (and certainly motivating to hear), I was talking more about the innate qualities of a man, the traits that don't change so easily being so rooted in man's nature (even if an attempt CAN, of course, be made to change those destructive actions, sure... but bad habits do have a way of resurfacing... man's nature don't change so easily... in any case, I don't believe there's such a thing as a perfect person but we're digressing now and I'd rather not open this box right now...)

What-what-what? Why do I keep seeing this phrase... "laurens walking"... and what does it mean? Is it in code?

Code for the score that played during the scenes in which Alvin's on his green lawnmower, him with nature surrounding him, the blue skies above him and the vast green expanses and fields everywhere.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Seems like it´s gone through a bit of a redraft".

Strange that you notice, because the adjustments were quite miniscule this time around - even though I added the Lauren´s Walking inquiry. But, yeah, as I´ve admitted before, my "first drafts" sometimes do tend to be a bit on the sharp and confrontational side in tone and selection of words - moreso than necessary.

"So someone who isn´t well acquainted with Lynch´s other works is at a disadvantage here".

But of course - it´s elementary, really. You use his other films as manuals to unlock a given piece you´re preoccupied with as certain kind of symbolism and narrative elements tend to emerge as constants in his films (all the zig-zag´y floor patterns, red curtains, images of fire, smoke, short circuiting electricity etc). It´s not that his films are impossible to understand without being well versed in Lynchland in its entirety, but it sure helps immensely to gain a deeper insight. And, to the point, if the car accident scene didn´t signify something about Alvin´s history at the wheel, it´d be totally pointless, a random weirdism, which is something Lynch never indulges in (with the possible exception of Wild At Heart where he got totally unhinged for some reason). There is coincidence in life, but there´s none in the thoroughly controlled environment of a motion picture. Things don´t just "happen" to end up on screen, they´re put there deliberately and with a purpose - at least when we´re discussing masters of the craft such as Lynch.

"But the others were certainly bleaker".

Well, yeah, I was talking about the ultimate impact, what we´re left with when the film departs - and the ending of Inland Empire is purely celebratory, with evils overcome. Meanwhile, in TSS, as said, it´s a deeply sorrowful cul-de-sac.

"Even if I agree that he´s stubborn and stupid, it doesn´t really make me feel any less sympathy for the old man".

Understandable, but a lot of people also seem to consider Alvin´s vices themselves as something endearing while, if they really cared about the geezer the way they claim to, it would be responsible of them to point out how dumb and self destructive this behaviour is, rather than applaud the idiocy and urge him on.

"Traits that don´t change so easily being so rooted in man´s nature".

Are habits such as smoking really "deeply rooted in man´s nature?" But anyway, I certainly didn´t mean to imply it is "easy" to give up smoking or any long standing habit as it´s usually anything but. I´ve known several people who have repeatedly tried and failed to give up tobacco, booze or whatever unhealthy habit... even though, admittedly, none of these folk had received a medical death threat the way my grandpa did (not to mention I keep finding excessive eating near-impossible to put a lid on, myself... meanwhile, quite strangely, I don´t really have much of an addiction problem with smoking as 2 or 3 week long breaks are no challenge and the only reason I haven´t given up the habit entirely, is because I like it, every now and then. Never developed a physical addiction, even though I´ve been smoking on a semi-regular basis for some 16 years). Also, my grandpa had it a ´bit´ easier perhaps due to having only started smoking after the war, when he was nearing 40 (he actually traded his cigarette ration for chocolate when in the army) - it´s common knowledge that the earlier you begin the harder it is to kick the habit.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Shorter reply, seems we've hit the saturation point here.

And, to the point, if the car accident scene didn´t signify something about Alvin´s history at the wheel, it´d be totally pointless, a random weirdism, which is something Lynch never indulges in

All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to signify something about Alvin's history. And obviously, when I suggested that coincidences occur in life, I wasn't saying the scene just "happened" to be there without Lynch having any purpose for it. And that's all I have to say on this particular topic. Evuh!

Meanwhile, in TSS, as said, it´s a deeply sorrowful cul-de-sac.

To each his own then... I thought it was fairly moving myself, and a fairly reassuring, beautiful scene that said something about companionship and family.

if they really cared about the geezer the way they claim to, it would be responsible of them to point out how dumb and self destructive this behaviour is, rather than applaud the idiocy and urge him on.

Fair point. But I refuse to pass judgment - calling him stupid and stubborn - without having been in his shoes. Yes, even for a matter that is as black and white as the one here. No matter how naive that may sound to you. Hence, my unabashed sympathy (for the flawed human being). In other words, I'm not urging his idiocy as much as I'm trying to understand it, or understand him.

Are habits such as smoking really "deeply rooted in man´s nature?"

Well, I guess not (right?). But I was talking about stubbornness there.

even though, admittedly, none of these folk had received a medical death threat the way my grandpa did

I don't get why people need to wait for a medical death threat before they realize that what they're doing IS going to kill them sooner or later. Anyway, I'm surprised that you've gone 16 years smoking on a "semi-regular" basis (I honestly didn't know there was such a thing... always thought you were either very irregular... or you were an addict... well whattayaknow). Is it possible that you get your addictions satisfied in some other way though?

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] Lucia2016 (612) 2 years ago

I came here to check this idea out because Norm Macdonald used to talk about this film a lot on different podcasts it was one of his favourite films and he said he wasn't particularly into David Lynch but he dug this one.

He came to the same conclusion that Alvin is not a good guy and he said that if you re watch the film with that in mind then it becomes something entirely different and quite chilling.

That would be the coolest move ever from a director if he pulled a real fast one on people and delivered his first 'Straight Story' and people would dismiss it or put it in it's own bracket away from the rest of his usual films when in fact it's just the same but incredibly well hidden

reply

[–] Seperatrix (1220) 2 years ago

Alvin was lost and needed redemption. He found it in the end.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]