Review by cheathamg

I was scanning through the other commentaries on this film and I noticed that most of them used either the word "genius" or the phrase "work of art" in reference to Mr. Lynch's work. If we define genius as an unusually powerful capacity for doing original, inventive work, then we must decide whether or not this film meets that criteria. It is unusual, there's no denying that. If by powerful you mean that it stirs the emotions, and we are discussing a piece of work in an art form and the measurement of whether or not something is a work of art is if it affects the emotions, then yes, it is powerful. Emotions can be affected in a positive or a negative manner by a work of art. The imagery in this film is dark and disturbing. It is an experimental film, which tends to make one think of it as original and inventive. It could easily be said that it is not, in that dark, spooky films about grotesques have been made almost from the beginning of movies. But just because a certain type of film has been made before doesn't detract from the quality of the film under discussion. The real issue here is whether or not Mr. Lynch's work can stand as an organic whole. This is where I think it begins to get into trouble. Mr. Lynch has filled the film with images that probably mean something to him. However he doesn't communicate that meaning to his audience except for an overall feeling of repugnance and dread. If we go back to the concept that a work of art's primary function is to communicate an emotion, that perhaps that is enough. However, a film, and this one is no exception, is a narrative. Narratives are supposed to communicate ideas. They tell stories. This film tells a story, but the characters are doing things, and events are happening that don't make any sense. Mr. Lynch probably knows what's going on but he doesn't share that knowledge with the audience. The film is filled with powerful images but they don't coalesce into a coherent story. There is no why and wherefore. I'm sure many people will say that a work of genius doesn't have to explain itself. It just is. That's a point of view, but most people require some sort of meaning in order to derive enjoyment from a film. Is mood enough of a meaning to make people want to sit through a movie?