To top it off, you could do worse than asking Bob Walkenhorst of The Rainmakers to be the inaugural Moses.

The Rainmakers' 'Let my people go-go' [0] remains a masterpiece.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTEIjM3BkLo

I am propably wrong on this, and counter examples are very welcome. But to me it seems like he’s the only person in Hollywood who makes films that show dreams how they actually subjectively feel to us when we are dreaming. Not just the “picture perfect narrative but with a pink tint” but all the strangeness that dreams involve, like something mundane being incredibly scratch without a clear reason why. characters simultaneously being different people, or someone in a dream clearly being someone yet looking different. And of cause all the strangeness of realizing you are in a dream yet still dreaming. The mix of absurd control and at times complete lack of control.

The short "What did Jack do?" is also strange, even by his standards.

What it does to you is often more important that what the artist's intention is

> There is a theory that Lynch himself doesn’t always know what is going on in his stories. He shoots this down. “I need to know for myself what things mean and what’s going on. Sometimes I get ideas, and I don’t know exactly what they mean. So I think about it, and try to figure it out, so I have an answer for myself.”

> Audiences, however, must do their own figuring out. “I don’t ever explain it. Because it’s not a word thing. It would reduce it, make it smaller.” These days he rarely gives interviews, not even during the hugely hyped return of Twin Peaks last year – a show that is still debated as either the best or worst TV of 2017. “When you finish anything, people want you to then talk about it. And I think it’s almost like a crime,” he explains. “A film or a painting – each thing is its own sort of language and it’s not right to try to say the same thing in words. The words are not there. The language of film, cinema, is the language it was put into, and the English language – it’s not going to translate. It’s going to lose.”

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/23/david-lynch-got...

Lynch's work tends to operate on dream logic. And that's how dreams often work - there can be coherent ideas - some random, and some related to concerns in the real world - and there can also be just bizarre, insane, inexplicable stuff.

Lynch embodies the magical spell of art in such a free and aggressively personal form, it's amazing. And for him, that tends to come at the expense of ordinary narrative intelligibility. But it's not only intelligibility between his art and the recipients of his art; it is also between his art and himself. It's not compatible with a cold, purely analytical approach, but rather with one that is necessarily driven by sensitivity and intuition. Trying really hard to really "decode" it is in fact undoing it, as you won't be able to appreciate what it truly is, artistically; instead, and not without lots of work and head-scratching that will get zero confirmation from him, you'll be scrutinizing the bare minimum of linearity and conventionality that you were able to dig up and rearrange, all of which takes a rather functional role in the whole thing, and even then, it'll be so far removed from the experience of the film and its aesthetic essence, that you might as well watch something else. It's like laying eyes on the most beautiful, weird, intricately built, inspiring sculpture, and focusing on taking it apart so you can see what's inside, only to destroy its true form and value.

Being "puzzling to unpack" is the point. His works often try to put the audience into a state of awe, confusion, wonder or other emotional/unconscious mind experiences... which is only possible if he can first subvert your rational conscious minds attempts to pack it into a simple, logical explanation or story. With Lynch, just when you think it's about to make sense, he will take an abrupt turn and completely derail that.

Most shows seem to gradually reveal the underlying story/truth as they progress. Twin Peaks is the total opposite of that- it starts out kind-of straightforward, and gets progressively harder to make sense of the more you watch. The owls are not what they seem.

Twin Perfect has over five hours of Twin Peaks explanation on YouTube ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AYnF5hOhuM (there are follow on videos too).

As a long time Twin Peaks viewer and Wrapped in Plastic subscriber, it all resonated for me. The thesis there is extremely comprehensive and full of examples and the most compelling version I've found.

It may spoil it for some, and if you prefer to leave mysteries untouched ... don't watch it, but it also enriched my subsequent rewatches of many Lynch films.

Lynch is a huge proponent of meditation and even has a foundation promoting it https://www.davidlynchfoundation.org.

His ideas and imagery come from there, I would guess. He said somewhere that it's like diving deeper down to catch the bigger fish. So we end up with quite strange, but very detailed and interesting imagery and set of characters.

It's also not completely random. There is some loose internal logic and Lynch knows what it is, I feel, but he refuses to explain it. It's part of the fun to try to decipher it.

The furniture pieces have some art deco motifs, and look like they would fit into the Twin Peaks universe well. Specifically thinking of Naido's place or fireman's castle on the purple ocean from The Return https://backtotwinpeaks.com/twin-peaks-articles/supernatural...

The idea of places and even furniture, specifically, hosting spirits is also common in Twin Peaks. here I was remembering Josie being stuck in a wooden knob and log lady's husband spirit going into a log.

> Whereas most works seem to have a thesis and then explore them on different levels, Lynch seems to just throw out ideas in different scenes.

Many interpretations come to the exact opposite conclusion: that Lynch starts with a specific idea and then visits it in a different way in each scene. They may seem different, but there is an underlying theme. At least, if those interpretations are right.

Here is an example for Inland Empire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkk9GWonTyg

Try to ignore that person's overconfidence, he does actually make a good case for his interpretation, I think, showing that the film can be seen as boiling down to one clear main message. (I don't agree with all of his points, but I do think he is on to something.)

> I would love to unpack what parts of twin peaks were Lynch’s design and what parts were not

Reading Mark Frost's books can help there, as likely Lynch's influence on them is minimal. But it is still hard to unpack, Twin Peaks was really a joint project.

It's possible the product he offers is precisely this; he throws things together randomly, carefully avoiding anything making sense, effectively making interesting noise, so that higher IQ people (i.e. vs a marvel movie) with time to kill can indulge in the leisure of trying to make sense of it.

> Lynch seems to just throw out ideas in different scenes.

Well, that's what he does. He basically adapts his dreams into film. He can't explain much because even he doesn't have the answers.

I don't find that a particularly impressive approach to creating art, but he certainly has his fans.

From what I've seen, I've more gotten the sense that Lynch doesn't like people asking him what the "correct" interpretation of his work is, which is slightly different than opposing the personal act of interpretation, or discussing it.

Lynch has repeatedly hinted that there’s a correct interpretation to all of his works. He just wants you to have the joy of finding it yourself — which is why he refuses to explain any of it.

Personally, as a massive David Lynch fan, I love the fact that he does this. I must have had half a dozen interpretations of Mulholland Drive over the years — all of which I like even though I’m fairly sure I know the ‘correct’ interpretation.

And the red curtains outside the exhibit (https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/XjDqSXDkvQBVceLropEs3C-768...) are obviously a nod to the red room in Twin Peaks...

I guess he just also very much enjoys being the madman [0] . It is fascinating to see the childish fun he has in all the things he is doing.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZpi8zAqe0

On the other hand Lynch has always been a bit of a troll, and despite his aloofness he is aware of his own celebrity. I could see this chair being a way of saying "yes this exhibition is by that David Lynch, the filmmaker."

Lynch has very unique tastes, so it is very possible that he likes the material and the color and there is no other reason for it. But he is also a very funny man with a good sense of humor, so it can also be a joke from him specifically to have people argue about the curtains.

great reference