David Cronenberg vs David Lynch

Tools    





DAVID CRONENBERG



DAVID LYNCH




Ok here it is. The ultimatum showdown. Which director do you prefer? Which director has adapted a particular style that translates well onto the big screen? Which director has produced some of your favourite films?

I think they are both interesting directors. I don't rate them as highly as most of their fans (namely Sedai, Yoda, Pyro Tramp), but I do think they have done heaps for cinema by making their respective masterpieces. Cronenberg with A History Of Violence, Lynch with Mullholland Drive.

I myself find myself more geared towards Cronenberg. Not Bodyberg, but Crimeberg. What he has done with Eastern Promises and A History Of Violence has been amazing. I like the themes he explores and his direction style. David Lynch leaves a lot to be desired sometimes. I'm some of a detractor of Lynch, but that's another story.

So I ask you mofos, which auteur do you prefer and WHY? I want to know, tell this mofo right here right now



A system of cells interlinked
Well, you know who I will choose.

I do enjoy a fair amount of Cronenberg's material, but I downright dislike some of it, as well. You ask which director has adapted a particular style, and to that I answer, both of them... They both have a clearly unique and recognizable style, although both clearly draw from some of the greats, as well.

Lynch, I adore. I feel he is the most unique and creative director working today, and I feel he understands the language of cinema very, very well. Lynch speaks to the viewer on so many different levels, many of them subconscious, and I feel his films affect people in a pretty unique way. Sometimes, it can take days for one of his films to expand and grow in a person's mind. A dark fractal that lodges itself in the mind and sends tendrils of sound and imagery into the most remote recesses of the psyche, stimulating electrifying and sometimes disturbing feelings and modes of thought. Absolutely visceral, beautiful and horrifying things can be discovered and examined in the world of Lynch, a world that spans not only films, but paintings, music, and animation. A world that is distinctly and purely Lynch. If asked which director has the most immediately recognizable tone in film, Lynch is my first choice, hands down.

His catalog is impressive. Before someone chimes in and claims Lynch can only do obtuse surrealist work, I point them to the Disney film The Straight Story, which is, IMO, one of the most underrated films in any directors catalog. Lynch handles the material in a straightforward and heartfelt way, subtly telling the story of Alvin Straight, an elderly man in failing health that rides his John Deere lawnmower across multiple states to repair his relationship with his estranged brother. A wonderful story, and Lynch nails it.

Alas, his surrealist work is my favorite, though, with Mulholland Drive fighting for the top spot in my favorite films of all time, deadlocked in a three way tie with Blade Runner and Polanski's legendary Chinatown. Mulholland Drive is a tonal masterpiece. It also features an incredible score, amazing performances, and a Chinese puzzle box screenplay that has had a cult of fans decoding it since the film screened.

My love for Lynch doesn't stop there. The Elephant Man is an incredible piece of work, striking into the heart and soul of the viewer. Blue Velvet is considered Lynch's best by many people, so it must be at least pretty good. A Brilliant deconstruction of small town America with the signature Lynch flair. I am still processing Inland Empire, but I really only have positive things to say about it at this point, and some of the sequences are some of my favorite Lynch ever...

Oh, we can't forget Eraserhead. The most obtuse of Lynch's films until Inland Empire came along, this black and white nightmare on film is incredibly unique, disturbing, thought provoking, and SO creative. Slam 6 shots of Tequila some night and pop this gem in.

I am also a BIG fan of Lost Highway. Although a bit too dense and confusing, this film still has a TON to offer in the surrealist genre, and has some amazing scenes in it. Another tonal tour de force.

I also like Dune, although i clearly see it's issues. I am still of the mind that this story is NOT adaptable to the big screen, but I think Lynch nailed a good deal of it, and he certainly nailed the tone. Flawed, to be sure, but I still watch it pretty frequently.

Wild at Heart is probably my least favorite Lynch film, but I haven't seen it THAT much, so I will give it another shot soon...

I love ALL the Twin Peaks stuff, including the film, and I run Twin Peaks episodes in my player frequently.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



In terms of style they are incomparable in my opinion. Cronenberg's earlier films focus on venereal horror (The Fly) and his later films concentrate on manipulation of emotion (Crash). Lynch is very much an auteur as well. Inland Empire, Mulholland Drive etc rely on deep consideration and patience. Lynch's films are oftentimes completely incomprehensible and only he knows what he is attempting to achieve by his inventive use of mise en scene.

Personally, i prefer Cronenberg. I love both of their works but i think i would rush to the theater a few seconds faster if i saw Cronenberg was sitting in the directors chair. Crash is a masterpiece (a word i consider overused) and The Fly, A History of Violence and Dead Ringers are also very good films.

Cronenbergs masterpiece is Crash (1996)




David Lynch's masterpiece is Mulholland Drive








What a thread.

As you mentioned i LOVE Lynch but also LOVE Cronenberg, it was a toss up between either to study in my dissertation since both are possibly the two greatest working directors today, in my opinion. The thing i like about Cronenberg is his body of work (pun not intended) where he has some true masterpieces, i'd go for Crash and Videodrome, more so than History of Violence which i do admire but it's not as chock full meaning and metaphor as my other selections.

I think the dividing difference between the two is Cronenberg permeates his vision thematically whereas Lynch offers it stylistically. Based on that i tend to place Cronenberg a fraction higher because he's a director i can see has a clear vision, and clear thematic occupations which he's provided through a multitude of differing work. Lynch on the other hand i'd say makes the stronger individual films however i don't feel his most quoted works are as strong when looked at as a collective filmography. I've not seen all Straight Story so put that aside but take Mulholland Dr, Eraserhead, Lost Highway they all seem to strive for similar concepts and i think it's fair to say his work his and style is concluded in INLAND EMPIRE. I left Blue Velvet out because that's one of his works i feel strives and succeeds for thematic success alongside his following avant-garde inspired psychological manipulating work. I completely adore his vision and ethos to filmmaking and letting the audience work for clarity and subsequent working of the viewers psyche and penetration of the subconscious.

Cronenberg, admittedly his 'body horror' period is somewhat gimmicky and mostly crass psycho/sexual exploitation but they were all enjoyable and effective to a point but it was Videodrome that really employed his themes effectively with some landmark Freudian interchanging of gender roles, criticism on current culture and a brilliant entry into the horror genre with some classic scenes of gore. The Fly is thrown around a lot as his masterpiece but i never found it to have anywhere near as much depth or interest as Crash or even Naked Lunch, and also find it ironic both are adaptations (like most his 90s work). Crash demonstrated a maturing of his sexual preoccupations and came out in a full blown masterpiece that's every bit as tonal and well shot as anything by Lynch, think would place it beside Blue Velvet.

Had a very train of thought post so to conclude, i rate Lynch's individual works higher than Cronenberg and love his philosophy and understanding of film, however compared to Cronenberg, even if Dave C does take a lot of his work from other sources, i think his filmography shows a far more adaptable and interesting array of work.

I find it quite ironic that i've not seen either of these auteurs works that stand out from the rest in their variations; Spider and Straight Story.
__________________






My love for Lynch doesn't stop there. The Elephant Man is an incredible piece of work, striking into the heart and soul of the viewer. Blue Velvet is considered Lynch's best by many people, so it must be at least pretty good. A Brilliant deconstruction of small town America with the signature Lynch flair. I am still processing Inland Empire, but I really only have positive things to say about it at this point, and some of the sequences are some of my favorite Lynch ever...

I am also a BIG fan of Lost Highway. Although a bit too dense and confusing, this film still has a TON to offer in the surrealist genre, and has some amazing scenes in it. Another tonal tour de force.

.
Wow, now THAT'S a love letter to Mr Lynch. I think it's fair to say that you're one of his biggest fans ever, and that post showed. Your loyality to him is almost as strong as my loyalty to Mr Nolan.

I see what why you and anyone would like somebody like David Lynch. Yes, he is distinctive. Yes, he is even creative. HOWEVER...I find his fimography to be TOO gimmicky. That's right, I used the word 'gimmicky'. I hate using that word because it's overused, but I feel its necessary if i'm to describe Lynch's body of work.

His work is a bit too distinctive to the point where it distracts from the narrative. I mean, it works well in films like Blue Velvet, which is his signature film, but when applied to a film like Mullholland Drive...I dunno, I can't help but think that the film could have been 5 stars if it weren't for all the Lynch trademarks.

I almost think that Lost Highway is his best film. I really enjoyed it and it's metaphors. I haven't seen this Straight Story film, but my girlfriend had told me enough about it for me to know that it is one simple arse story with only one fairly selfish motive: To show that simple narratives are neither engaging or as cerebral as the convoluted stuff he comes up with.

It's as if he saying that his auteur approach to cinema definitive and perhaps more necessary than the Pieces Of April 's that come out nowadays, and I think that is WRONG. Wrong to the pepsi max, I tell ya.

I think Lynch needs to take a step back for a bit. I mean, imagine Batman Begins as directed by David Lynch? The man wouldn't be able to help himself by making it some sort of explicitly nightmarish hell hole with midgets walking around dresses in some sort of phallic outfit. I dread to think of what his version of The Joker would look like...



Interesting bloke, though.



I see where you're coming from on gimmicky, was sort of what i was touching on in my post but despite that, his films are stunning even if self indulgent and bordering pretentious. I also have phases when i rate Lost Highway over Mulholland Dr.

But anyway, to your point about distracting from the narrative, who cares. Lynch is nothing in the slightest about narrative, which is why they're mostly left open to be constructed by the viewer based on his images and skillful control of cinema and the audiences. He is a genius, mad, but still.



What a thread.

As you mentioned i LOVE Lynch but also LOVE Cronenberg, it was a toss up between either to study in my dissertation since both are possibly the two greatest working directors today, in my opinion. The thing i like about Cronenberg is his body of work (pun not intended) where he has some true masterpieces, i'd go for Crash and Videodrome, more so than History of Violence which i do admire but it's not as chock full meaning and metaphor as my other selections.

I think the dividing difference between the two is Cronenberg permeates his vision thematically whereas Lynch offers it stylistically. Based on that i tend to place Cronenberg a fraction higher because he's a director i can see has a clear vision, and clear thematic occupations which he's provided through a multitude of differing work. Lynch on the other hand i'd say makes the stronger individual films however i don't feel his most quoted works are as strong when looked at as a collective filmography.

I've not seen all Straight Story so put that aside but take Mulholland Dr, Eraserhead, Lost Highway they all seem to strive for similar concepts and i think it's fair to say his work his and style is concluded in INLAND EMPIRE. I left Blue Velvet out because that's one of his works i feel strives and succeeds for thematic success alongside his following avant-garde inspired psychological manipulating work. I completely adore his vision and ethos to filmmaking and letting the audience work for clarity and subsequent working of the viewers psyche and penetration of the subconscious.


The Fly is thrown around a lot as his masterpiece but i never found it to have anywhere near as much depth or interest as Crash or even Naked Lunch, and also find it ironic both are adaptations (like most his 90s work). Crash demonstrated a maturing of his sexual preoccupations and came out in a full blown masterpiece that's every bit as tonal and well shot as anything by Lynch, think would place it beside Blue Velvet.
Hmm, I would definitely agree with you on their different approaches. Cronenberg is definitely more thematic whereas Lynch is more comfortable in taking the visual and aesthetic approach to conveying his comments.


I prefer Cronenberg too as I race to see his films and find myself actually thinking about them more often than not, too.That said, I didn't like Crash. I can't get over how disturbing it is to see what a good movie it makes. More on Cronenberg in my next post. Gotta sleep for now.



Yeah as I was saying about Cronenberg..

The man is a fascinating director. I put him above David Lynch simply due to what Pyro Tramp said about him placing more emphasis on his thematic vision, which I think is harder to convey than it is visually. In that sense, he reminds me of Christopher Nolan, only inferior.

Also, Cronenberg seems to know when to stand down from his stylistic devices for the benefit of the film, as evidence by his removal of scene 44 in A History Of Violence . That scene had Cronenberg written all over it, but he step down like a good director and decided to tell the narrative in the most effect way possible. Do you guys truly think Lynch would have done the same thing? Hell.To.The.No.

As for your comment about The Fly not being a masterpiece, that's your opinion. I like most people feel that it's an excellent film. Definitely my favourite from Cronenberg's body horror collectioon.



The Fly IS a great film and maybe Cronenberg's most solid film but i just find less of interest in it compared to his other work, there's none of the disturbed pseudo sexual tension, which separates his work from as being more than horror, in my opinion.

I'm somewhat torn on the History of Violence alterations, even compared to the graphic novel as well as 'scene 44'. While it shows integrity to the construction of the movie and keeping the set tone, it doesn't necessarily give him points as an Auteur compromising his own individual style in favour (possibly) of a more mainstream vision. And that's what i respect Lynch for, his uncompromising vision, even going independent to make the film that HE wants to make in INLAND EMPIRE, even if it pompous and can be seen to suffer from his own ego, it's still at the least the work of a true great auteur.



The Fly IS a great film and maybe Cronenberg's most solid film but i just find less of interest in it compared to his other work, there's none of the disturbed pseudo sexual tension, which separates his work from as being more than horror, in my opinion.

I'm somewhat torn on the History of Violence alterations, even compared to the graphic novel as well as 'scene 44'. While it shows integrity to the construction of the movie and keeping the set tone, it doesn't necessarily give him points as an Auteur compromising his own individual style in favour (possibly) of a more mainstream vision. And that's what i respect Lynch for, his uncompromising vision, even going independent to make the film that HE wants to make in INLAND EMPIRE, even if it pompous and can be seen to suffer from his own ego, it's still at the least the work of a true great auteur.
Nah mate, I see wher ya goin' but I gotta disagree. It's about what supports the work. I'm all for auteurism, but as long as the film doesn't suffer, which many of Lynch's films do due to his self confessed uncompromising vision. I don't think that translates into a great auteur. It's fine to have signatures as long as it supports the story somehow, a la Christopher Nolan. That's the point i'm trying to make, bruv.



Yes, but being an auteur is about personal input, even if it compromises the film. As far as i'm concerned, the two concepts can effectively be mutually exclusive, whether a film's good or not it can still support the auteur's style and reflect his input and creative control. The whole 'theory' is quite subjective to the viewer and how they receive the films and it also has it's flaws, which can explain why i wouldn't put Nolan on the auteur team (who, btw, can we have a debate without involving lol). I suppose you could argue Cronenberg's control on A History of Violence in as much as him cutting the scene to retain his vision, despite it being removed from his typical style. It's Lynch's uncompromising vision that forefronts him as one of the greatest auteurs as that is what the whole thing is about.



I love both of their works...

But lately Cronenberg hasn't been making the kind of films we love him for.. I have no problem with his latest films.. But I miss the kind of films he used to make..

So I have to go with Lynch here.



The only Cronenberg I've seen is his remake of The Fly, which I didn't really care for (I actually prefer the original, a gem of B-movie cheese). So Lynch wins for me, as of right now.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock



Good whiskey make jackrabbit slap de bear.
Ok, you got me. Tyler, i'm curious; why the neg rep?
I'm very sorry about that. My iPad is very extra sensitive and when I tried to click on your "Favourite Movies", it decided to neg rep instead. Again, sorry about that.

As for my choice, haven't really seen much from either, but Cronenberg's work interests me more. I've wanted to see The Fly, Crash, Videorome, The Naked Lunch and Scanners for a very long time (and I might be seeing The Fly very soon). Lynch is good, from what I have seen, but his work for me is uneven. Mulholland Drive and Twin Peaks are brilliant, but Wild At Heart and Dune sort of bored me (I haven't even finished the three hour long Dune). At least both of the Cronenberg films I've seen (A History Of Violence and Eastern Promises) were both solid, promising films.

Given my usual preferences, I think Cronenberg will impress me more when I seek out more of his work.
__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."



I haven't seen much of Cronenberg but I do know every Lynch movie I see I love so I'm picking him
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



Cronenberg


Shivers

Videodrome

The Dead Zone

The Fly

Dead Ringers

Crash

Spider

A History of Violence

Eastern Promises

A Dangerous Method


Lynch

Eraserhead

The Elephant Man

Dune

Blue Velvet

Wild at Heart

Twin Peaks

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

Lost Highway

The Straight Story

Mulholland Drive

Inland Empire



Cronenberg Ranked:

Videodrome

Dead Ringers

The Brood

Shivers

The Fly


Lynch Ranked:

Mulholland Drive

Blue Velvet

Inland Empire

Fire Walk With Me

Eraserhead

Lost Highway


Love them both, but Lynch wins. For me, he's right up there with Hitchcock, Scorsese, and Kubrick as one of my very favorite filmmakers. Twin Peaks is also my favorite television series of all time.

An observation: it's interesting how the two are thematic inverses of each other. Cronenberg's films are nightmarish portraits of the horror within, and Lynch deals with the dark underbelly of the world outside.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Cronenberg Ranked:

Videodrome

Dead Ringers

The Brood

Shivers

The Fly


Lynch Ranked:

Mulholland Drive

Blue Velvet

Inland Empire

Fire Walk With Me

Eraserhead

Lost Highway
Interesting ratings but to me, The Fly is far and away the best film on that list. I give that
. I cannot give any other film on your list more than
. Oh well, what can I say? I'm a loser. Try to watch other movies by these directors, but I assume with your love, you don't need me to say that.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page