there is a connection to these great directors, cronenberg being my favourite.
after going over all the differences they share or the opposite direction they take whether mental, visual, technique or even choice of genre, the thing that unites them both is FATALISM or rather the portrayal of its hold on their films.
each has his way but both drive u5b4s down that same road

Maybe because they both implement surreality to various degrees in most of their movies, although I'd say Lynch more so. I like both directors but I never compared them (in my own mind) before, nor had I heard anyone else compare them until now. I can see why, in a way - they both have used a lot of non5b4-talking moments that were nonetheless extremely intense.
:: They're also very NOT like each other in many ways.
|{(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

Lynch mention from Twitter:
gZa @The_gZa
COSMOPOLIS - Cronenberg's most surreal film since Naked Lunch. Imagine a Lynch take on American Psycho set mainly in the back of a limo. 4/5
And probably because of DeLillo rather than Cronenberg, a Mamet comparison:
Matthew @rapidfirestudio
Cosmopolis feels like Cronenberg took acid with Mamet
Norman Shetler ?@batesman
Having finally seen all of Cosmopolis in a concentrated setting I can finally say that it's my movie of the year so far.
Cosmopolis:
http://ow.ly/1iTyiC

The comparisons are all superficial. They're both named David, they're from the same generation, they've both made indie films that are unusual, they aren't easily pigeonholed, and they attract a cult following.
http://ow.ly/1iTyiC
Both Cosmopolis trailers
.

Lynch bore a definite similarity to Cronenberg during the early stages of his career when he had this Cronenbergian obsession with disfigured flesh. Later not so much.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

They both have funny hair.

Lol - you got schlopped.

Yeah, well, piss off then.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

You're whining that I don't like your phallic sh*t. Some of Cronenberg's older movies had some of it going on. The one with the zombies, whatever the name of it was - don't care to look it up.

And with the exception of Viggo Mortensen's briefly exposed member in Eastern Promises, I've never noticed any intrusive "juicy phallic ima2000gery" in any other Cronenberg movie; I take it you must really dig it if you keep seeing it everywhere.
The parasites in
Shivers
; the armpit stinger in
Rabid
.
I got news for em. Theres gonna be hell to pay. Cause I aint Daddys little boy no more

So this is your idea of a reasonable retort to my pointing out that "the juicy phallic imagery" in Naked Lunch goes with the territory and therefore your whining about it isn't really much valid? And with the exception of Viggo Mortensen's briefly exposed member in Eastern Promises, I've never noticed any intrusive "juicy phallic imagery" in any other Cronenberg movie; I take it you must really dig it if you keep seeing it everywhere.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I take it you like juicy phallic imagery? Cronenberg does it in other films too. I've already said Naked Lunch was one of his best, despite the cocking about we're talking about, and the dida0sappointing Scooby Doo ending.

"But that phallic obsession"
You may not like it, but considering the source material and who Naked Lunch is about, this so-called "phallic obsession" certainly isn't out of place. And the film generally does an exceptional job at visualizing Burrough's f-cked up world.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I don't get that trying too hard part, all auteurs try their best to give quality films, why should it be a criticism? And, Crash seemed to me as something that came naturally for Cronenberg.
I liked Cosmopolis as well, I think it's one of his best and incredibly under-rated. I'm guessing you'll like Maps To The Stars as well - it's a dark satire on Hollywood from a superficial perspective and it has got more to it. It is surprising to see the film get wider acclaim than expected.

Fair-play, not the first time Cronenberg has divided audiences.

This is where we simply won't agree. I see a guy lusting after automobile violence as being ostentatiously fetishistic, while you see it as subtle, layered art. There's just too much of a gap.

Crash doesn't try too hard. In fact, its actual theme doesn't cry loud and resides within inner layers. That's a sign of having a clear idea of what it is.
Just because his works are indie or that he works on a low budget doesn't mean he makes B films. He started out with a few high concepts (even they were social commentaries), but his accomplished films were deep lessons of the human mind and its interactions with the environment. No B filmmaker can execute complex themes and provide for character development in the way he has done so often. And atmosphere in his films is genuinely elite. Just because you keep crediting such a tag to him doesn't mean it will eventually ring true. You're only disregarding his acclaimed and accomplished works of a level, that not all top filmmakers can achieve, let alone B filmmakers.

It's the perfect way to describe it. Crash is the definition of trying too hard. That's what is irritating about the man and his fans. He's got this big ego that doesn't come close to matching the product he puts out, and his fans act all uppity as if his blunt films are too hard for critics to understand. It's the opposite Cronenberg is a glorified B movie maker, which would be more tolerable if he didn't think so highly of himself.

Whenever I read the "tries too hard" critique I try not to ignore the rest of the writing.
I think both Lynch and Cronenberg are great, genuine auteur directors - they are rare gems that should be valued - I truly admire them as artists with distinctive perspectives. Some may prefer one to the other, but some prefer Clapton to Hendrix, or Caravaggio to Vermeer - what else is new. I'm grateful that Cronenberg is still sending out his lightning bolts (yes, I though "Cosmopolis" was brilliant - looking forward to seeing "Maps to the Stars"). I selfishly wish that David Lynch would get up from his full-lotus and also continue to create feature length films, but I respect that he will say what he has to say in the time and way he chooses to say it.

Wild At Heart is by far my least favorite Lynch film. Nothing clicked, other than a shotgun and it was just a silly mess for the most part. I liked Naked Lunch for the most part, by far his most polished film to my tastes, other than the Fly, but that phallic obsession..
Something like Crash tries too hard for symbolism - just too blunt and a bit attention whorish as if to say "Take me seriously, I'm being symbolic now, it's not as juvenile as it may seem to you third world viewers". Yes, he has his themes, but the execution is lacking most of the time.

Look, I like both of them and have watched every film of both. That's insanely biased. Even some of Lynch's films like Wild At Heart have shades of B-Films. Cronenberg did start out with B-Films, but he matured throughout his career. From Dead Ringers, he made real quality films with character depth and complex plots. Dead Ringers, eXistenZ, Naked Lunch, Crash and Spider are not what they seem superficially and there's a lot more that one discovers in retrospect. The atmosphere and tone in those films perfectly bring out his ideas.
Saying his films are imaginative because he's weak is ridiculous and plain wrong. A lot of elements in his films are intentionally ambiguous and that is how they should be.
Lynch took normal themes and presented them in his unique style and using complex plots. Cronenberg took really challenging themes and tackled them with success a vast majority of times.
There's no need to belittle one to praise another.

Homie please, Lynch could figure out how to make a dog bark more subtle than Cronenberg could hone in on one of his badly executed themes. If Cronenberg leaves something to the imagination it's due to him being such a weak film maker that he's simply unable to execute his ideas. He's a B movie film maker, at best. Naked Lunch had potential, but it was ruined by his phallic obsession.

Lynch isn't that very subtle either. Surrealists are hardly subtle. And subtlety is hardly a quality that you should be looking for in these filmmakers.
But it's insane that you say he doesn't leave anything to the imagination. Some of his supernatural films like Scanners, The Dead Zone, The Fly are thinner in terms of concept, but they are highly stylized. Most of Cronenberg's other films are ambiguous and provide high scope for imagination. They are thematically deep (eXistenZ, Crash, Cosmopolis, Spider, Videodrome, Naked Lunch) and have good character development (Maps To The Stars, Dead Ringers, Eastern Promises, A History of Violence).

Cronenberg isn't anywhere near Lynch in terms of film craft. Cronenberg is all about concepts which are far too literal and come off borderline goofy on screen. There's nothing subtle that leaves anything to the imagination.