Perhaps, but I don't think this is the case with Lynch.
Well, let's go beyond binary. If forced to choose between "Is surrealism a crutch for David Lynch, yes or no?" I'd pick "no." But if it were a sliding scale, I probably wouldn't put it at 0. Honest question: would you?
Yes it is. Expecting every movie to follow the same logical, linear course is nothing if not narrow-minded. It's fine to have preferences, sure, but it's not fine to dismiss movies simply because they don't fit your limited scope of what a film should be. I can't respect that, sorry.
I don't really respect it, either (inasmuch as it actually exists). But I'm making a distinction between whether or not something is open-minded and whether or not it's indicative of wanting to be spoon-fed. Skipping a quote to go right to one related to this:
I never said his films don't have structure, they do. They simply use a vastly different structure than the majority of films use, and if not fitting into the common mold makes someone despise it, then yes, I would imagine this is the kind of individual who doesn't want to be challenged.
By "structure" I mean the "typical thematic rules and storytelling logic" you mentioned. But what I'm getting at is that disliking films that stray from this is not the same as not wanting to be challenged. I'm not saying you can't criticize these people--I'm saying I think the criticism itself is the wrong one. By all means, argue that they're wrong, or narrow-minded. But that's different than making insinuations about their intelligence, or curiosity, or desire to be challenged.
Frankly, couldn't you make a case the other way? A film that has no correct interpretation isn't challenging, because there's no possibility of getting it wrong. To be a challenge implies the possibility of failure, which doesn't exist if any interpretation is as valid as any other.
I never said the two were mutually exclusive, this false dichotomy you seem to think I believe does not exist. The primary point of my post was to address something that irritates me, how people see no meaning in a film and therefore assume it cannot be there. After all, if it doesn't make sense to me (and I'm the smartest being in the universe) it must be void of meaning. I come across this quite often.
No difference, only that you seem to think I believe that what I say is the absolute truth, which I certainly don't. That's why I use phrases like "I think," "seem to," "anecdotal" and "observations."
I'm only operating under the assumption that you think what you're saying is true. Not that you think it's an undeniable, metaphysical truth. If you're open to changing your mind, that's great. I think more of you for it. But I don't think I've said anything that assumes otherwise.
Anyway, taking these two quotes together: is there any reason for designating your opinion as just an opinion, but theirs as "spouting off"? It seems to me quite easy to take our own opinions as nuanced and thought out because we're privy to all that went into them; but all other people hear are the conclusions, which sound a lot starker. In another thread earlier today you spoke quite starkly about Christopher Nolan. Should I take your criticism of
Inception to mean, as you say about these other people, that your interpretation "must" be the right one, because you're so smart? Or that another point of view can't be valid? I think it's a stretch to read so many personal failings into an opinion, even if I thought it completely wrong.
Because anything can have meaning if looked through a certain perspective, intentional or not. Even things that have no artist which made them, like the natural world, can have meaning. To avoid trying to find meaning in things seems like analytical laziness to me. Which is fine, as long you don't go around spouting how "meaningless" something is. In particular, when there are entire websites devoted to ideas and analyses about the film someone apparently finds "meaningless," it comes off as silly and even intellectually adversarial. I'm sure this isn't always the case, but it's the impression I get from some. Just my two cents.
When someone says a film is "meaningless," I don't see any reason to read into that that they're saying it's
impossible to find meaning. The question is: is something meaningful just because you were able to find something in it?
I'd say no, for the reasons you've already mentioned; everything can have meaning if you want it to. But if everything can have meaning, then the word "meaningful" doesn't distinguish one thing from the next. I take it to be understood that to call something "meaningful" is to suggest a meaningfulness above and beyond whatever meaning can be found in everything else. Lots of words--beautiful, delicious, important--imply this sort of relative comparison.
So when someone says a film is "meaningless," aren't they just saying they have a different definition of the word "meaning" than you do? And if so, is there any point in disagreeing with them, seeing as how disagreement would imply a common definition of the word?
Everyone generalizes, and even stereotypes aren't necessarily bad. It's when you can't critically look at your generalizations and understand that's in fact what they are that you should be worried. Of course I made generalizations, you don't need to point out the obvious. Furthermore, stereotypes are beliefs about groups of individuals, not the same as generalizations. Stating that I've noticed that many [insert group here] tend to [insert here] is not a stereotype. It's not a firm statement, therefore it is not a belief, therefore it is not a stereotype.
This is all technically true, I admit. But then, this would also let all sorts of bigots (no, I'm definitely not calling you a bigot) off the hook, too. It's easy to change this into "I've noticed that many <members of racial group> can be seen doing <bad thing>." Technically, just an observation, but the fact that they felt the need to voice it is usually considered ipso fact proof that they believe in the associated stereotype.
Incidentally, if you like discussions like this--even when combative--it's a pretty good indication that you'll like it here in general. And if not, not.