That just sounds like he's parroting some words he's heard other people say to convey a concept so basic I can't imagine why he thought it was worth pointing out. "I work with these archetypal narratives to register my visuals in the mind of the viewer"? I have noticed that moistness is a function of water content. "Visuals are transcendental to me, as well as the content" sounds like it might mean something, but it doesn't. That sounds to me like he's one of those people who thinks everything he doesn't understand is bullshit, so they think they can just fake it by bullshitting. It's the question of what the hell is wrong with them.Īnd let's all acknowledge that at least half the reason Breen made that movie was to force a sexy young woman to look at and then touch his saggy naked butt and get video proof of it. It's not their arguments or manifestos or whatever that I find compelling.
I do enjoy Breen's movies, but I enjoy them in the same way I kind of enjoy reading about crackpots and zealots and other people who are wrapped up in their own damaged realities. He never even questions whether he's communicating effectively or presenting events realistically. It's an exercise in pure, childish arrogance and self-importance. That's not done for surreal effect, it's not a reflection of the subconscious for anyone but Neil Breen. It's as though it wouldn't even occur to him that anyone would question anything he does. He seems blissfully incapable of any kind of self-reflection. Everything about the execution is so incompetent that it ends up as a study in his personal pathologies. He picks and chooses elements that he wants to incorporate into his self-serving narrative, but he never ties anything together in any meaningful way. Fateful Findings is an unintentional parody of formulaic filmmaking. It has nothing to do with the story itself. The only thing Breen really sucks you into is his own warped, narcissistic worldview. While some of the ultimate effects might be similar levels of surreal at a superficial level, Lynch's draw you in with a storyline, visuals, motion, dialog, and sound design that all contribute to a dreamlike atmosphere that, for many people, is uncannily familiar and otherworldly at the same time. English is not my native language.ĭavid Lynch is incredibly effective at creating an atmosphere and a perspective by skillfully combining all the aspects of film into a single vision. What are your thoughts on this director and this film?Įdit: sorry for the piss poor grammar. And I'm not a fan of his concurrent themes like saviour complex and government conspiracies. What I little hate about the movie is it's surface level leftism. And his symbolism is very primally constructed and evoked confusing emotions in me. The suburbian uncanniness mixed with surreal inagery reminded me the works of David Lynch especially TPTR. When I first saw that movie, it gave me shooks and visceral reactions to some of the imagery.
Many artists seek out technology to express their visions but Neil choose to restrict his language by restraining the technology.Ĭoming back to the film itself, it's a surreal masterpiece: something only director like David lynch can be proud of. I mainly fascinated by his method of creating art by constraining the technology. Unlike others, what I really love about his works are his outsider approach. Of course, he uses different cinematic language to create that quality. He creates such a puzzling, unconvincing yet welcoming atmosphere in every scene which can be seen in works of auteurs like Hayao Miyazaki, Robert Altman and Fellini.
0 kommentar(er)
