Cant believe i missed this thread. laughed my a&$ of reading it. You people are the best, loved it.

Just to be clear. It's not that I dont work with anyone who likes Lynch. Read my exact words. I won't tolerate someone trying to convince me that he's a genius...on set... when they should be trucking a cart full of c-stands from point A to point B, but instead they feel need to convince me - because they are appalled that I think he's an idiot. But some idiots can't let it go. I'm not firing them for having an opinion. I'm firing them because their actions display to me that I will have a problem with them asking me, "What for?" in the middle of a setup under the gun, when I ask for something they can't comprehend the reason for. It's not your job to understand why I want a Dedo there, it's your job to fucking put one there, and shut the fuck up.

And I failed to mention. That firing them isn't necessarily a permanent state. I'm provoking them, I want to see how they'll react to it. Depending on how they react - they might get to their car, and realize that it was just a warning not to do anything else that stupid on my set. And when I say "gimme a double-double on that 2k, and David Lynch is an idiot." Their job is to smile, and make it happen. They can call me an asshole behind my back as they are running to the cart to get what I need.

But If you ask my guys if I'm really an asshole, you'll find that I'm one of the few DP's who has a reputation for never yelling at anyone. I don't have to. And they like working for me - we have a lot of fun while working our asses off. And half of them like Lynch, they just understand that I will not tolerate dissent on set. When I want ideas, I'll ask. My gaffer and I have usually discussed the shoot ahead of time and have a battle plan, and there are times when we are running out of lights and distro, and we'll have a confab with the team to figure out how to make everything happen as quickly and efficiently as possible. But most of the time - I know my job.

And every one of my guys has been through the Lynch test. I learn more from provoking them, than I ever could by asking 20 questions. It's always funny when a rookie gets the test. All my guys look up from whatever they're doing and smile. They know it's the equivalent to asking for a squeegee sharpener, or a bucket of steam. It's part hazing, and part stress test. I need tough guys with a sense of humor about themselves and the work. This work isn't for the timid, or people who take themselves too seriously.

What a great thread!!

To add a little bit of gasoline into the fire I'd like to take it into another direction:

STEVEN SPIELBERG is the DEVIL. He ruined cinema.

As much as you, dear Shian, won't work with anyone who likes David Lynch, I wouldn't want to work with anyone creatively (I don't care about the focus puller) who likes Steven Spielberg's work.

To justify my opinion: In the mid 70ies when New Hollywood was not buzzing that much anymore Steven Spielberg and George Lucas saw their chance to take over. They created a simplistic recipe. They took elements from B-movies and a simple storytelling formula (summarized in the infamous 7 page memo) together with a highly manipulative way of working with music, visual effects and storytelling tricks to evoke emotional reaction. Unfortunately it worked. "Jaws" was the first piece made according to the recipe and it was a huge success. "Star Wars" followed. The big studios were ravished. Blockbuster cinema was born and finally they had found the recipe to print money. Great directors like Bogdanovic, Friedkin, etc. were pushed aside. The road to everything that's wrong with cinema today was paved - thanks to Mr. Spielberg.

Before Spielberg & co. the unfortunate separation between art cinema and mainstream cinema did not exist to the extent that it does today. Great big budget movies like "2001:A Space Odyssey" were possible in the studio system.

Lynch may be questionable. But he is one of the few directors that hold up a cinema that questions, disturbs, blows minds and provokes discussion versus a cinema that manipulates, spoon-feeds simplistic views on the world and sees the audience as dull, submissive consumers.

I don't question Spielberg's talent. He might be a genius and I must admit that I even enjoyed watching some of his films when I was a kid (today they make me want to throw up). I guess he is not aware of what he did. Still he is highly responsible for the cultural and creative wasteland that covers most of cinema landscape today.

Cheers, gentlemen.

Let's look at "The Prestige" vs. "Inception" as an example. I'll go on record and say that The Prestige is one of my favorite films, and I think it's brilliant. Conversely, I couldn't care less about Inception. But why?

Well, I had come to expect a level of surprise that bordered on genius from Nolan's non-Batman films. And Inception did not deliver that for me. It was a case where I expected the WHY behind the mystery to be much greater than what was revealed. It wasn't a bad film, but it was a case where the mystery was so big that almost nothing could live up to it. And I expected something more from the ending. Like maybe Leo's character was the mind being hacked. A complete misdirection. Instead we're just left wondering if anything we saw was real or not.

This is the challenge we face as storytellers: Do we leave the audience satisfied, or do we take a chance that they won't be, and leave the ending open to interpretation?

Everybody's answer will be different. In my case I loved that Memento was open, but was disappointed that Inception was open, but my fave film of his is still The Prestige. Is it because the ending was finite? Or was it something else?

@jrd that would make sense except that before I started doing it, my success rate was about 15-20%.

But the thread isn't really about job interviews, its about whether or not to stand in the way of a good story. Create the story, or let the story create itself? Tell a story with a beginning, middle and a surprising ending around a campfire, or set fire to a sofa in the middle of a dinner party and walk away? So many choices.

To provoke an audience, and create a mystery is only the beginning. It's something Lynch is very good at, but it's because he knows what just about everybody else knows: That sometimes the mystery itself is so much bigger than any possible reveal or payoff. It is better to let it remain a mystery. -- If the midget in the clown suit took a shit on the prostitute in the green velvet dress doing the breast stroke in the gutter, and then danced away while singing a Nordic death march, and your conclusion was: "because the color orange." Then why get in the way of a good story? You as the audience answered the why for yourself. It's true for you. Or you could walk away from that and ponder all the many reasons he might have done so. A conclusion is not drawn. You draw your own.

I still get hired by the producer I first walked out on - frequently in fact. Over the past few years we've become friends. And to this day he still asks me why I did it. My answer is always the same, "You already know the answer." To which he says, "Stop saying that! You're making me nuts." So, recently I asked him if his need to know why I did it was the only reason he kept hiring me, and his answer, jokingly, was "YES!!!" But he admitted that the truth is he likes my work and he likes me, and the story of me getting up and walking out just sticks with him, and he loves telling the story during lunch to people working with me for the first time, or just as an anecdote.

I will never reveal the reason I walked out for the first time. No matter what the reason was, it can never live up to the mystery it created when I did it. Leaving it a mystery is the best option. There is nothing I can tell him at this point that will satisfy him. It will only be a disappointment. Now if I had a really solid story that I had crafted cleverly, and the punchline was the reason I walked out. Then I would gladly tell it. But in this case, the premise behind the action that provoked the audience and created a mystery, just isn't that strong. Whatever conclusions he draws, or anyone he tells the story to draws, are their truths, their reasons, and why get in the way of a good story? :)

and so....

The reason I have a problem with Lynch as a storyteller is that any idiot can provoke an audience and create a mystery. (I did it with very little effort in this thread.) But it takes a true talent to create a great payoff that makes the mystery satisfying. Some will say that I'm missing the point. That art is supposed to be left to interpretation. Lynch's original films, the one's he comes up with by himself, are considered art because he doesn't resolve things. He simply provokes, creates mystery, and leaves you to figure it out. And yes, that is the very nature of art. But it is not Genius. And, to me, it is chickenshit storytelling. IMO he is an artist who is afraid to make a clear thematic statement for fear of being judged based on his conclusions. (Yes, that means me not telling my friend my reason for walking out is a chikenshit move. Go ahead, you can say it. It's true. And it is also true that it makes for a good story. BUT it does not in any way make me a genius.)

I have a great respect for storytellers that put themselves out there. They have something specific to say, and whatever they say, whatever theme they place before the world, they will be judged for it. They craft their stories very thoughtfully, and they don't insert their ego into the film. They serve the story, rather than the other way around. These storytellers, when the term actually applies, are geniuses because what they do takes actual talent. Any idiot can walk out in the middle of an interview. But it takes a certain kind of genius to turn that action, and the reason behind it into an amazing story. (Not that I've done any such thing. I just tossed a proverbial grenade in the room, and watched everybody react. Which, by the way, is the best way to get to know someone.)

What Shian doesn't seem to consider here is that these people may be as smart as he is. Far from being manipulated, it's much more likely that they're making allowances for him, the same way they make allowances for temperament in actors. Try running (or even just watching) a casting session some time. The better directors and casting directors are unfazed by rude or abrupt behavior, if they think there's value to be had there. If they don't think so, the audition ends in 30 seconds and/or the offender is free to walk out without a word.

In Shian's case, his work is almost certainly known by the director or producer, or at least recommended to them, in advance of the interview. So he's half-hired before he even shows up. That's why they call him back.

Step one: Pull pin, toss grenade... and wait.

Morpheus: We are looking for the Keymaker.

Merovingian: Oh yes, it is true. The Keymaker, of course. But this is not a reason, this is not a `why.' The Keymaker himself, his very nature, is a means, it is not an end, and so, to look for him is to be looking for a means to do... what?

Neo: You know the answer to that question.

Merovingian: But do you? ... You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect.

Morpheus: Everything begins with choice.

Merovingian: No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. Look there, at that woman. My God, just look at her. Affecting everyone around her, so obvious, so bourgeois, so boring. But wait... Watch - you see, I have sent her a dessert, a very special dessert. I wrote it myself. It starts so simply, each line of the program creating a new effect, just like poetry. First, a rush... heat... her heart flutters. You can see it, Neo, yes? She does not understand why - is it the wine? No. What is it then, what is the reason? And soon it does not matter, soon the why and the reason are gone, and all that matters is the feeling itself. This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it, but it is of course pretense, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. -- Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the "why." "Why" is what separates us from them, you from me. "Why" is the only real social power, without it you are powerless. And this is how you come to me, without "why," without power.

believe

silence.

+1 You are definitely getting there. Keep exploring. You're there in spirit and that's what matters.

+1 and then -1 cuz the 2nd answer is patently wrong. The 2nd answer is what you do after you understand the WHY.

But another +1 because at least for now, you have an answer, even if it may not be entirely correct. It is correct for you. For now. You can get to where you need to go, if you keep thinking this way. Where is it you need to get? I don't know. It's up to you. But at least you're headed in the right direction...

nope, nope, and nope

You have to remove me and anything you know, or think you know, about me from the equation. I do not matter. I am simply a character in this story.