![\"David](\"\/jason\/files\/lynchhandoverheart.jpg\" "\\"David")
\nHere is the citation for the edition I am using:
\nJohnson, Jeff. Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch<\/i>. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2004.<\/p>\n
\nHere is the citation for the edition I am using:
\nJohnson, Jeff. Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch<\/i>. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2004.<\/p>\n
I’ll start by noting that I typically only read critical work that enhances or adds to my appreciation of something I already enjoy. Reading Pervert in the Pulpit<\/i> has been a totally different experience. This book basically blasts David Lynch, who I’ve considered to be my favorite director since high school. I was extremely skeptical when I started reading. The first sentence on the back of the book states: “Filmmaker David Lynch’s work is viewed here as patriotic and Puritanical.” Whoa! That’s a bold statement for someone who represents the idea of counter-culture and weirdness to so many people (including myself).<\/p>\n
After reading Johnson’s introduction, however, I was convinced… or, to be less-dramatic, I was intrigued and could see where his argument was going and how it was probably pretty convincing. As I write these notes, I’m 107 pages into the book. I’ve read Johnson’s analysis of Lynch’s short films and the features Eraserhead<\/i>, The Elephant Man<\/i>, Dune<\/i>, and Blue Velvet<\/i>. I’m sold on his argument and I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to watch a Lynch film the same way… and I’m not sure that’s a good thing (or am I just being conservative and nostalgic?). Nonetheless, I’m totally enjoying this book and don’t regret reading it.<\/p>\n
On to the notes:<\/p>\n
\n“David Lynch, instead of claiming the mantle of a counterculture hipster with an affinity for outlaws and disenfranchisement, [has] more accurately aligned himself with foot soldiers in the contemporary culture wars, carrying a banner for virtuecrats, neo-cons and Reagan conservatives” (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I’ve always considered Lynch to be a “hipster” and “counterculture,” so this statement immediately caught my attention… plus, I hate “virtuecrats” and neo-cons and Reganites, so I was curious to see how Lynch could align with them.<\/p>\n
Johnson identifies a<\/p>\n
\n“Calvinist instinct in David Lynch” (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I admit that I’m not terribly familiar with the philosophy of John Calvin<\/a>, except that he was Christian and extremely conservative and that he was very influential in Geneva back in the day.<\/p>\n
Johnson found Lynch’s “moral framing” to be more interesting than other critiques of his work.<\/p>\n
\n“I could not look at his work … without identifying his moralistic slant toward mythological ideals of goodness, charity and benevolence threatened by forces of evil” (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“his ‘calling’ as a puritanical preacher, albeit one with a penchant for pornography” (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When Johnson looked to other critics, they<\/p>\n
\n“self-consciously emerged as apologists for Lynch’s Puritanism” (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This has been my experience, as well. The most critical work I’ve read, Slavoj Zizek’s The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime<\/i>, is very psychoanalysis-heavy, but makes no arguments about Lynch’s morality or ethical constructions.<\/p>\n
The critics<\/p>\n
\n“tended to dismiss his conservatism” (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Johnson<\/p>\n
\n“relied on the intertextual theories of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud… these theorists provide a handy vocabulary within with certain patterns of Lynch’s behavior can be both examined and exploited” (3).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“Lynch identifies with authority” (3)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ala Gordon Cole in Twin Peaks<\/i>.<\/p>\n
\n“Lynch epitomizes the voyeurism inherent in a crusade” (4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dale Cooper, Jeffrey Beaumont, Paul Artreides (all played by Kyle MacLachlan — “his alter ego”):<\/p>\n
\n“rationalists plagued by the truth of their dreams” (4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“I was always aware of watching Lynch watch Jeffrey watch Frank deny Dorothy’s visual pleasure” (4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“All moralists, as Nietzsche says, are prey to their own morality” (4).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Introduction: Blackbeard, Calvin and the Outer Banks of North Carolina<\/h2>\n
When Johnson first watched Blue Velvet<\/i>,<\/p>\n
\n“I watched Blue Velvet<\/i> every day for a week” (6).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When I first watched Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me<\/i> I watched it every weekend for two months or something like that — so I could identify with Johnson.<\/p>\n
\n“I was fascinated by Lynch’s oddball approach to the ordinary. He seemed like a kinky phenomenologist” (6).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“I was seduced” (6).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From a psychoanalytic standpoint, this is a really funny phrase to use, especially for someone who knows about film theory and the male gaze and whatnot. I’m sure Johnson used this phrase ironically.<\/p>\n
Johnson analyzes Dennis Hopper’s acting history, which I think is rather strange, but whatever…:<\/p>\n
\n
- “Redundancy became Hopper’s trademark” (7)<\/li>\n
- He is a “post-abuse neo-conservative” (7)<\/li>\n
- “Blue Velvet<\/i> having become the final repository, the culmination and exhaustion of the motifs and images from all his earlier work” (7)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Lynch’s films<\/p>\n
\n“reinforced a wistful benevolence, projected a vision of nostalgic America that existed only in a Reaganesque, bright-eyed Eagle Scout’s good-deed diary” (9).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“the good people<\/strong>, the elect, are beautiful, wholesome, well-balanced, with a penchant for fifties’ fashion and family values, while the bad people<\/strong>, ugly and carbuncular, deal drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, produce pornography and mock in blatant acts of blasphemy the virtues of American hearth and Heartland” (9, emphasis mine).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This seems pretty par with literature in general — good people are good<\/em>, bad people are bad<\/em>… but I guess it’s good to be reminded.<\/p>\n
Lynch uses<\/p>\n
\n“desire as a destructive force, the root of evil” (9).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Themes in American literature: guild, sin, and redemption (9)<\/p>\n
Lynch is<\/p>\n
\n“a rather straightforward reactionary working within the tradition of typical Calvinist thought in American literature” (10).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n“Like Mike Lewis in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom<\/i> (1959), Lynch seems to derive a kind of voyeuristic pleasure from indulging in what he condemns” (10).<\/strong>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is, I think, the key to understanding Johnson’s argument.<\/p>\n
\n“Lynch dodges questions about ‘message'” (11).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Lynch is known for being tight-lipped about his films — he never discusses meanings, interpretations, etc. Is this because he doesn’t want the true message to get out?<\/p>\n
\n“Reading Lynch through Freud is, of course, irresistible; but more than a method of analysis, Freudian readings of Lynch identify a framing device around which Lynch builds his narratives” (11).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I.e. id and ego. I love Freudian readings (and Lacanian readings, more so), so I agree that it is “irresistible.”<\/p>\n
\n“[Lynch] reminds me of a debauched priest asking for prurient details during confession, or a judge who needs to read a pornographic text a few times too many before he deems the material obscene” (12).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This reminds me of a few things: first, Foucault’s discussion of confession and rape trials where people had to give explicit details of their sexual activities in order to “turn on” the priests and judges; second, something I read during my Media Studies class about obscenity trials where jurors and congressmen<\/em>, etc. would spend obscene<\/em> amounts of time “studying” and “verifying” the pornographic content.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Here is the citation for the edition I am using: Johnson, Jeff. Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2004. I’ll start by noting that I typically only read critical work that enhances or adds to my appreciation of something I already enjoy. Reading … Continue reading Preface-Introduction<\/span>