The 100 Best Horror Films (Time Out London)

[Thomas Eckhardt]

> David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't know Argento, but Lynch has deep and multi-layer 
>substance.

Perhaps, and it also helps that his thematic concerns (or 
the conventions of his chosen genre in Argento's case) do
not include butchering women in ingenious ways (although
Roger Ebert showed himself disgusted by what Lynch put
Isabella Rossellini through during the filming of 'Blue
Velvet', mainly because Ebert thought the film was not
worth such an ordeal). But how much substance is
there really? And is substance
necessary for a work of art to succeed? What does 
'substance' mean?

I am asking this seriously. I believe 'Blue Velvet' and 
'Mulholland Drive' are masterpieces. But what would be 
their substance?

What I admire about 'Blue Velvet' and 'Mulholland Drive'
is in a way the same thing I admire about Argento's best
works: how close these movies come to being filmic
equivalents of nightmares. Not only in terms of the events 
depicted but in terms of defying logic and reason by means 
of their structure.

Just some thoughts. I will let this rest now because I 
want to follow the group read of BE as closely as I can.

Thomas
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l