Director David Lynch was born on this day in 1946 in Missoula, Montana. Lynch’s father was a research scientist with the US Department of Agriculture, which moved him around a good deal, thus Lynch grew up in the Pacific Northwest, North Carolina, and Northern Virginia. Lynch studied art and design at several schools. In addition to writing and directing films, he was a painter, sculptor, photographer, writer, and music composer/producer, as well as an inveterate tinkerer. I’ll deal only with his film and television work.
In 1970, Lynch moved to Los Angeles where he studied at the American Film Institute Conservatory. In 1972, he began working part-time on his first feature-length film, Eraserhead, funding it with an American Film Institute grant, a loan from his father, and even part-time work delivering newspapers. Eraserhead was finished in 1976, released in 1977, and became famous on the “midnight movie” circuit. Eraserhead is one of the weirdest films ever made, but it was the beginning, not the end of an illustrious career.
Mel Brooks, in particular, loved Eraserhead and agreed to produce Lynch’s next film, The Elephant Man, based on the true story of Joseph Merrick, a severely deformed man who worked as a sideshow freak in Victorian England. Merrick was given refuge in a London hospital by Doctor Frederick Treves and became a cause célèbre of Victorian high society. Like Eraserhead, The Elephant Man was filmed in black in white, but with a much larger budget. Filming was done in London, with a largely English cast, including John Hurt as Merrick (his first name was changed from Joseph to John) and Anthony Hopkins as Doctor Treves. Although The Elephant Man has many of Lynch’s signature surrealistic touches, it is highly accessible and deeply moving. The Elephant Man was a critical and commercial success, receiving eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay.
The success of The Elephant Man brought Lynch a flood of opportunities. George Lucas even offered Lynch The Return on the Jedi, which Lynch declined. It is just as well. Lynch could have killed the whole Star Wars franchise if his Return bombed as badly as his next project, his adaptation of Frank Herbert’s 1965 science fiction classic, Dune. Filmed in Mexico with an international cast and released in 1984, Dune was a critical and commercial disaster. Lynch did not have control of the final cut, and many good scenes were discarded. Lynch remained bitter about the experience for the rest of his life and refused all offers to do a director’s cut. Two more versions Dune have been made since, one by the Sci Fi Channel, the other by Denis Villeneuve (Part I, Part 2). But, for all its flaws, Lynch’s vision remains my favorite.
The flop of Dune led to the cancellation of any Dune sequels, so producer Dino De Laurentiis allowed Lynch to make Blue Velvet (1986). In some ways, Blue Velvet is the first true David Lynch film. Of course, Eraserhead is entirely Lynch’s vision, but its realization was hampered by extreme technical and financial constraints. The Elephant Man and Dune were other peoples’ stories. But Blue Velvet was entirely David Lynch’s vision, he had the budget and technical means to realize it fully, and he had control over the final cut. Blue Velvet was a huge critical success, did moderately well at the box office, and earned Lynch his second Academy Award nomination for Best Director. It remains his masterpiece.
Lynch was most famous for Twin Peaks, his ABC television series with Mark Frost that ran in 1990 and 1991. Although Twin Peaks rapidly lost direction, Lynch’s pilot, as well as the first few episodes, are some of the best television ever made.
Lynch’s next film, 1990’s Wild at Heart won the Palme d’Or at the 1990 Cannes Film Festival. I think it is superb, but the responses from American critics and audiences were tepid. After that, Lynch returned to Twin Peaks with a prequel film, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992), which was also a critical and financial failure, although I think very highly of it.
Then Lynch worked on two unsuccessful television projects, both of which lasted only three episodes: On the Air (1992), produced with Mark Frost for ABC, and Hotel Room (1993), which was done for HBO.
In 1997, Lynch returned to movie theatres with Lost Highway, starring Bill Pullman and Patricia Arquette. Lost Highway is one of Lynch’s darkest and most surreal films. I think it is brilliant, but most critics didn’t get it, and the film was a commercial dud.
In 1999, Lynch surprised everyone by releasing a G-rated movie with Walt Disney, The Straight Story, based on the true story of Alvin Straight, an elderly and independent Iowan who traveled 300 miles on a lawn mower to visit his stricken brother. The film has many “Lynchian” touches but remains warm-hearted and sentimental throughout. I would argue that all of Lynch’s films are life-affirming. But in The Straight Story, the obstacles the protagonist overcomes are nothing more horrifying than old age and mechanical breakdowns. Both hell and heaven are far away, although there are hints of both throughout. The Straight Story was a critical and commercial hit. It remains the only David Lynch movie you can show to your old mum.
The success of The Straight Story revived Lynch’s fortunes in Hollywood. ABC had Lynch shoot a new television pilot called Mulholland Drive. When ABC dropped the project, Lynch reworked it into a feature film, released by Studio Canal. Starring Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring, and Justin Theroux, it returns to the non-linear storytelling and Stygian darkness of Lost Highway. But this time, the critics and audiences loved it. Mulholland Drive garnered Lynch the Best Director award at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival (an honor he shared with Joel Coen) and Best Director from the New York Film Critics Association. He was also nominated for the third time for the Academy Award for Best Director. In 2016, Mulholland Drive was named the best film of the 21st century in a BBC poll of film critics. In 2022, it was number 8 in the Sight and Sound poll of the greatest films of all time. I think Mulholland Drive is a great film, but these accolades are, frankly, a bit silly.
Lynch’s last two major projects were Inland Empire (2006), a three-hour feature film, and Twin Peaks: The Return (2016), 18 one-hour episodes on Showtime. I wanted to like them and should give them both another chance, but I fear I will still think they are terrible. Many people dismiss films like Eraserhead, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive as “meaningless.” I disagree. They have meanings. But Lynch likes to hide them. However, Inland Empire and Return have resisted my best attempts at interpretation. I don’t think they are engagingly hermetic, just boringly unintelligible. That wouldn’t be so terrible if they still managed to be entertaining. But I found them stultifyingly ill-paced and often sickeningly distasteful. I can only see them as a sad waste of nearly a quarter-century of a great artists’ life.
David Lynch is an artist of the Right for the same reasons that Flannery O’Connor is. Both Lynch and O’Connor are essentially mystics: Lynch a follower of Transcendental Meditation, O’Connor a Roman Catholic. Both believed that good and evil are metaphysical forces. Both had a strong sense of finitude, which manifests in a sense of place: O’Connor’s South, Lynch’s logging towns and Los Angeles. This sense of finitude also issues in a deeply conservative skepticism about fundamental moral progress. Both reject the idea that we’ll simply progress our way out of evil. Both are lovers of mystery, and deploy the grotesque as a signature of both the secular ineradicability of evil and their hope for an ultimate triumph of the good.
I never met David Lynch. But in 2000, I wanted to pitch an O’Connor film idea to him. Some of her short stories in Everything That Rises Must Converge deal with essentially the same character under different names. I thought they could be worked into episodes of a single life. But Lynch’s secretary replied that Mr. Lynch was at work on something else, which turned out to be Mulholland Drive.
I took the pen name Trevor Lynch because David Lynch resonates with me more than any other filmmaker. Since the 1990s, I have been planning to write a book on him. Some of the ideas for that book were first sketched in these reviews and podcasts at Counter-Currents:
- Greg Johnson and John Morgan, “The Films of David Lynch,” Part 1 and Part 2
- Trevor Lynch, “Blue Velvet: The Lost Footage.”
- Trevor Lynch, “David Lynch’s Dune.“
- Trevor Lynch, “Death My Bride: David Lynch’s Lost Highway.“
- Trevor Lynch, “The Elephant Man.”
- Trevor Lynch, “Eraserhead: A Gnostic Anti-Sex Film.”
- Trevor Lynch, “Hotter than Georgia Asphalt: David Lynch’s Wild at Heart.”
- Trevor Lynch, “Mulholland Drive.“
- Trevor Lynch, “Now It’s Dark: David Lynch’s Blue Velvet.”
- Trevor Lynch, “The Straight Story.”
- Trevor Lynch, “Twin Peaks,” Russian translation here.
- Trevor Lynch, “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me.”
I spent July through December 2006 in the national media spotlight as “that 9/11 conspiracy theorist” teaching at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which kept resisting various politicians’ calls to fire me. David Lynch was living in Madison at the time, and gave a couple of interviews expressing skepticism about the official story in general, and WTC-7 in particular. I wish I’d managed to get in touch with him. By the time I tried, he had left town. Anyway, it was heartening that my two favorite American directors, Lynch and Richard Linklater, were 9/11 truthers.
A filmic look back at the work of David Lynch deserves more than one comment.
I started with Eraserhead, however, the second time I saw it was also the first time I’d taken some kind of hallucinogen, so the few of my high-school friends who’d also seen at the time found the way my descriptions of scenes included colours amusing.
Very little to add to Trevor’s account, agree with almost all.
A few opinions and comments. Wild at Heart may now be underrated because Cage has made so many bad films since then. In itself, it’s still brilliant, almost the lightest of Lynch films, except for the ending and, of course for The Straight Story.
In Japan, at least. Hotel Rooms was recut into a video feature. It works as that.
Dune: Well, Trevor has a strong opinion on this. There is an extended version of it, in Japan falsely labelled ‘Director’s Cut’, and it incorporates many of the interesting scenes that should have been incorporated in a true director’s cut. That David Lynch didn’t want to do it is understandable; he wanted more budget than the studio would pay. Trevor thinks that the fake ‘Alan Smithee’ director’s cut is worthless, I don’t
agree, if you like the Lynch take on Dune, the extended cut is worth finding and watching.
Mullholland Drive, sure it was great, but the only reason it had far more critical acclaim than the better Lost Highway was the lesbian romance element, which coincided with a push for that in the wider pop culture at the time.
Inland Empire, I feel cheated of three hours of my life by that crappy film, should have walked out but didn’t, for the first hour or so, you expect it to pick up at some point, by the end of the second hour, it’s clearly going nowhere, I stayed in my seat at the cinema, still hoping for something (at least a surprise ending), and there was nothing.
Truly a PoS film. I trusted Lynch to do a sudden gear-shift some time, but it never happened.
Haven’t seen the Twin Peaks: Return.
Also agree with Trevor on Firewalk with Me, that was brilliant.
The only other thing I could add is that David Lynch offered some short films on his subscriber fan site, but the few stills I saw looked pretty boring.
This article also deserves more than an unbelievable two comments, so here’s mine.
Unfortunately I’ve always struggled a little personally with Trevor Lynch’s various film review articles here, and this is no exception. I find him at best quite stubborn in his prejudices, few of which make any sense to me, like a bright but spoilt sixth-former who thinks he understands very much more than he actually does. Most importantly here (apart from the various typos induced I suspect by voice-to-text dictation software and not afterwards edited) he has completely missed the main problem with David Lynch’s life-work (I can’t stand the pretentious “oeuvre”), which is simply that his abnormally-high-IQ polymath mind was sadly far too broad-based, creative, unique, individual, closely-focussed and yes, utterly “non-linear”, to ever genuinely appeal to most wholly non-artistic, closed-minded, money-chasing Jew producers. When powerful and wealthy Jews come across a genuinely and overwhelmingly superior White mind they simply don’t know how to handle it – so they do nothing at all. Lynch’s film visions and ambitions were therefore largely incapable of being slotted easily into (or controlled by) the current Hollywood mass-production commercial pipeline. That’s a pathway to mainstream rejection, or at best total indifference.
I also disagree with this completely:
That’s an opinion, which Trevor Lynch is entitled to. But for me, “unintelligible” is a complete nonsense, as it simply means that you personally don’t understand it. But millions of others at least think they do, and so any film critic should be well aware there are literally thousands of film / film review websites of varying quality out there, which carry deeper information as to the “meanings” of films – if that’s really so important to you or to the actual film “experience”, which I don’t necessarily accept should be the case. Even allowing for the usual cranks, fanatics and cellar-dwellers who post their repetitive teenage obsessions everywhere, many of such sites are competent and interesting – honest reviews by fans and enthusiasts and, like this very site, are full of important and undiscussed non-mainstream viewpoints. But in any case, most professional film-makers – especially genuinely uncommon and unique ones like Lynch – are unwilling to spend much time debating “meanings” even with enthusiasts, as they feel (quite rightly) that their work needs to speak for itself. Therefore any and all individual interpretations or “meanings” are at best unnecessary, and at worst pointless and beyond-tedious.
Nice to know though that I have one thing in common with Trevor Lynch – when I changed my surname in my 20’s for family reasons I treated myself to the choice of a character in what is still today one of Al Pacino’s most beautifully-shot, absorbing, thoughtful, and absurdly-overlooked great early films – today simply, I suspect, because it contains no guns, violence, foul language or Hollywood relationship at all to Scarface, Carlito’s Way or Heat, and is actually all the more watchable and wonderful for that. Bobby Deerfield, anyone ?
Video Link
Video Link
David Lynch was a rich privileged white guy who could jack-off on screen using other people’s money and call it art. None of his work will be remembered save Dean Stockwell’s and Dennis Hopper’s performances in Blue Velvet. Even they will be recalled only marginally.
Two scenes that I viewed many years ago deeply tinged my subsequent impressions of Lynch:
In Eraserhead, there’s a scene where (as I recall) the protagonist killed a deformed product of human conception, thereby relieving himself of the burden of care for the wretched being. The metaphor for abortion was clear. I viewed it in a campus art-house cinema, during the early 70’s period of social turbulence, and the crowd applauded the scene, apparently as endorsement of the zeitgeist of do-your-own-thing, unburdened by conventional moral obligations. Myself, I had a sense of moral uncleanliness, and I regretted my presence there, in seeming endorsement.
The opening scene of Blue Velvet shows the back of Isabella Rossellini’s head, bobbing up and down above a male crotch. When the film was released, she was unfamiliar to me, and I think to most of the American audience. That is how Lynch chose to introduce the daughter of the ethereally lovely Ingrid Bergman and the distinguished director Roberto Rossellini, who (we subsequently have learned) well embodies the gifts of her parents? I won’t dwell on this – I’ll simply say that it best explains why “David Lynch” is likely to prompts a “what a creep” response from me.
On the other hand, “Elephant Man” and “The Straight Story” are fine and decent, with the former deservedly being a leading candidate for Best Picture. Much of Lynch’s work seems to be exploration of a substratum of corruption and depravity underlying a surface layer of seeming wholesome normality, but with “Elephant Man” in particular, the flow is reversed – under a debased and degraded exterior, a sensitive and even poetic soul is discovered. The performances of John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins are wonderful in this movie. If Lynch could do a “large-hearted but suffering soul existing unsuspected beneath a horrific exterior” shtick this well, why couldn’t he have attempted more of it, instead of making so many deep plunges in the opposite direction? As it stands, “a talented poseur, but a poseur nonetheless” is my verdict on him.