Perhaps from the summary title you may be thinking that this review is an opinion of what the film is about. Well, you're wrong. In fact if you want an interpretation, look elsewhere. I haven't one.
I actually passed up watching this film years ago due to the fact that some of my pot smoking friends thought it to be a work of genius. My reasoning was that if THEY thought it to be genius then it must be crap. After all, these were the ones who laughed hardest at "Americas Home Videos" just because someone got hit in the "nads". So, based on this prejudice, I avoided this so-called work of art.
Fast forward x amount of years later and I decided to give it a look. First off, I'm glad I did. Second, I did miss something but NOT for the reasons most pretentious reviewers will lie about. For one, the movie is interesting. It is campy and off the wall which is why I regret missing it so many years ago. Outside of that, I find no meaning whatsoever in the film. As I understand it, this film took over five years to make, however it was not due to the depth of meaning but rather the shallowness of funding. And after viewing, and bearing in mind the context of the time I can see why no one wanted to back its production. It would have only been of interest to either pretentious film students or pot smoking friends such as mine.
Now to the bread and butter. Yes, I did like it. I liked it for the camp and bizarre awkwardness of the characters and sickness displayed. As for "art", "meaning" and "genius"...not so much. Why? Its not there. Not even Lynch can or will explain it. If there is any "genius" to this film it is in Lynch's vagueness about it that gives it an aura of depth that only a film student or critic can act like they get in order to promote the work.
I actually passed up watching this film years ago due to the fact that some of my pot smoking friends thought it to be a work of genius. My reasoning was that if THEY thought it to be genius then it must be crap. After all, these were the ones who laughed hardest at "Americas Home Videos" just because someone got hit in the "nads". So, based on this prejudice, I avoided this so-called work of art.
Fast forward x amount of years later and I decided to give it a look. First off, I'm glad I did. Second, I did miss something but NOT for the reasons most pretentious reviewers will lie about. For one, the movie is interesting. It is campy and off the wall which is why I regret missing it so many years ago. Outside of that, I find no meaning whatsoever in the film. As I understand it, this film took over five years to make, however it was not due to the depth of meaning but rather the shallowness of funding. And after viewing, and bearing in mind the context of the time I can see why no one wanted to back its production. It would have only been of interest to either pretentious film students or pot smoking friends such as mine.
Now to the bread and butter. Yes, I did like it. I liked it for the camp and bizarre awkwardness of the characters and sickness displayed. As for "art", "meaning" and "genius"...not so much. Why? Its not there. Not even Lynch can or will explain it. If there is any "genius" to this film it is in Lynch's vagueness about it that gives it an aura of depth that only a film student or critic can act like they get in order to promote the work.