Lynch or Cronenberg???
-
srinath_r_htanirs — 11 years ago(October 12, 2014 05:37 AM)
Lynch's just a bit higher as he ranks as one of the best ever. Cronenberg is not far away in my opinion and I find him very under-rated generally. Those who are only exposed to his more mainstream works are less likely to understand his greatness.
eXistenZ was one of those movies that blew me away and made me look up all his films, that film made most other 'Brain in the Vat' films look like works of amateurs. Cosmopolis, Spider, Crash, Naked Lunch, Videodrome and Maps To The Stars all rank very highly in my books.
I've come to a position where I'm able to sense his genius in each one of his films and I've come to the conclusion that no other film-maker is close to him in terms of the themes he touches and the style he has. -
Infanta-K — 11 years ago(November 08, 2014 01:44 PM)
They are both somewhat over the hill now,
but to Lynch's advantage, he doesn't do as many films as Cronenberg.
Retrospectively, most of Lynch's films are much more sensually pleasing,
while Cronenberg's are a bit more mature.
Compare something like Blue Velvet, Lost Highway etc (basically just rehashing of old sexual tropes of the West, and not much else), with Videodrome or Dead Ringers, and you probably have to opt for Cronenberg. -
JohnQuincyPublic — 11 years ago(December 12, 2014 09:04 PM)
Compare something like Blue Velvet, Lost Highway etc (basically just rehashing of old sexual tropes of the West, and not much else), with Videodrome or Dead Ringers, and you probably have to opt for Cronenberg.
Because the old tropes and clichs of the Enlightenment are so much morezesty!
I got news for em. Theres gonna be hell to pay. Cause I aint Daddys little boy no more -
-
estocade — 11 years ago(March 10, 2015 01:28 PM)
Cronenberg is definitely more accessible director of the two. Lynch's work gives me vertigo, and I have to be in a certain mood to be able to sit through it. People should stop calling him genius though, you don't have to be a genius to be an artist, but you need attitude and wisdom to bring quality to your work.
-
ma_marcil — 10 years ago(August 19, 2015 11:42 AM)
I love both and I think they are both great artists who made several landmark movies that I still watch to this day. That being said, well like somebody else wrote before me, I think Cronenberg is indeed a more accessible director and tI have to be in a certain mood as well to fully appreciate a Lynch movie. I have watched several Cronenberg movies more times than most Lynch movies, except perhaps for Blue Velvet. Otherwise, I think they are actually quite different as artists. I have yet to watch all of their films though, even though I have not many left to see. For Cronenberg, I have yet to see M.Butterfly and Fast Company, plus his earlier films like Stereo and Crimes of The Future. And as for Lynch, I have not seen Dune nor The Straight Story yet.
Bill Foster: I'm the bad guy?How did that happen? -
Robbmonster — 10 years ago(March 10, 2016 07:42 AM)
Incomparable in style, but I prefer Lynch.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
Pantstrovich — 9 years ago(April 16, 2016 09:59 AM)
As almost everyone said, they are too different to compare, but both very much favourites of mine.
I think Lynch has made more things that I didn't like (Rabbits- ugh) than Cronenberg has, but I haven't gotten through their entire filmographies just yet.
Lynch has also made things that I am desperately fond of, like Twin Peaks, while I'm not super sentimental about anything Cronenberg has done (though Videodrome is probably my favourite).
I have my bedroom done in Twin Peaks' "The Red Room" style, with a black and white, chevron rug and tall, red curtains; if that tells you anything.
Still, I love them both, and wouldn't mind getting more stuff related to both of them to decorate my room with (which is mostly filled with Freddy Krueger merch, as I am clearly very high-brow and pretentious).
Lately, I've been watching Lynch's earlier works, like The Grandmother. I recommend it (though warn of child abuse being a main theme, in case that would bother anyone especially so- it's not too graphic or realistic; it's very surreal).
http://www.imdb.com/board/10065794/
I plan on getting to more of Cronenberg's earlier works soon. A well as watching The Brood again, because I never really got the hype, though I'm trying to. It might just be one of those things some people grew up with that stuck with them, so I may never get it. -
dungeonstudio — 9 years ago(December 04, 2016 07:14 PM)
I don't think it's a question of which is better. More so why they're similar, yet so unalike. Watching Dead Ringers the other night, and finally occurred to me there's only like three or four external shots in the entire movie. About as many location interior shots as well. And the majority of the movie was done on a closed set, which doubled or tripled many times for the cafeteria, to the operating room, to the something else, etc. Whereas with David Lynch, I find he's more 'exterior' with his movies. Key moments, dialog, and moods are invoked by his locations, seasons, atmosphere, etc. I think what Cronenberg conjures up for the viewer is 'what goes on behind closed doors' - personal lives, emotions, secrets and the paranormal that must be closely guarded and contained. Lynch is more of the sublime that can happen right out in the open, be seen down an alley, can show up on the door step. A fantasy that exists in reality. And Cronenberg is more of reality that takes place in fantasy. Could race car drivers Al Unser and Richard Petty be compared? One's formula one racing, while the other is stock car. To the novice, they both drive race cars that go fast for long distances and try and stay in the lead. But to race car fans, the two are VASTLY different. That's the way I feel about Lynch and Cronenberg. Both named David, and make strange movies. But ones never going to be better than the other. They are the pro's of their own circuits.
